1951-05-29

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Halton) presented the fifth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like
to make an announcement regarding trade conferences. Last week, as hon. members know, a meeting of the Canada-United Kingdom continuing committee was held here in Ottawa, and during the week end my colleague, the minister of external affairs (Mr. Pearson), issued a short summary of the profitable discussions which took place. Discussions with the British West Indies followed the United Kingdom talks and are now completed.
A delegation of officials of the French government arrived in Ottawa this morning to discuss a number of problems pertaining to trade between our two countries. Members of this delegation spent yesterday in Toronto at the international trade fair, where they were welcomed as honoured guests and were able to see the merchandise of many countries now on display there. This afternoon the French delegation will begin meetings with officials of government departments concerned. It is expected that these discussions will be carried on for two or three days. The tariff agreement completed recently at Torquay between Canada and France was evidence of the desire which exists on both sides to create opportunities for trade.
Tomorrow, May 30, the minister of customs of New Zealand, who is also the associate minister of finance of that country, will arrive in Ottawa to discuss trade problems with the Canadian government. We welcome this timely visit of a distinguished minister of the crown from a sister commonwealth country. Canada has traditionally enjoyed
valuable trade relations with New Zealand, and we hope that the groundwork will be laid at the present meetings for further expansion.



RECOMMENDATION OF ANGLO-CANADIAN TRADE COMMITTEE FOR COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the
statement that has just been made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and his reference to the discussions with the Anglo-Canadian trade groups, may I ask if further consideration has been given to their suggestion that a commonwealth conference should be held with an aim to increasing trade within the commonwealth?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The continuing committee
made no such suggestion. We think that the work of that committee was a commonwealth conference, as it affected two countries of the commonwealth. We think the meeting with New Zealand will be a commonwealth conference, as it affects two members of the commonwealth. We hope from time to time to meet with other members of the commonwealth to discuss problems of mutual interest.


George Alexander Drew: I would point out that I directed my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in view of the information he had given us about certain trade meetings. I asked if the government had considered the recommendation of the Anglo-Canadian trade committee, and I understood the minister to say that no such recommendation had been received. I find the following in the Montreal Gazette of May 19:
The Anglo-Canadian trade committee today recommended that commonwealth governments should, at the earliest practicable date, call a commonwealth economic conference to investigate mutual trade problems.
It was to that statement, to which there was general reference subsequently in the press and elsewhere, that I was directing my remarks. The officials, some of whom are now meeting the government, were those who make up this continuing committee. I was directing my question to that committee and to the hope that this recommendation had received consideration.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I should like to set my hon. friend straight on his information. The Anglo-Canadian trade committee is made up

House of Commons
of private citizens of both countries. It has no relation whatever to the continuing committee, which is composed of officials of the two governments with the purpose of discussing trade matters as between the two countries. I have never seen the recommendations of the Anglo-Canadian trade committee. They have never been furnished to the government, as there is no reason why they should be. I have not had the advantage, as my hon. friend has, of seeing them quoted in the press.


George Alexander Drew: I point out that I used words in my earlier reference which correctly described this committee, and I would also remind the minister that I directed my earlier question to him in regard to this same statement. I am surprised to find him unaware of the recommendation.



RULES RESPECTING STRANGERS IN THE GALLERY AND SUBJECTS OF QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE- ASKING OF QUESTIONS-READING OF SPEECHES

Mr. Speaker:: May I be permitted to make a statement at this time. A few days ago the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) brought to my attention a practice which is becoming very common in the house of hon. members rising on so-called questions of privilege. This irregularity has also been brought to my attention by other hon. members from time to time throughout the session, and more especially during recent weeks. It has also been the subject of unfavourable comment in the press.
There are only two types of questions of privilege. One affects a member personally and is a matter of personal privilege, and the other is one which affects the privileges of all hon. members of the house. It is neither a question of personal privilege nor one which affects the privileges of all hon. members to inform the house that an athletic organization or any organization, or any citizen or citizens, have brought distinction to a member's constituency by winning a championship. Nor is it a question of privilege to bring to the attention of the house the fact that certain school children or others are in the gallery. No reference should1 at any time be made to the gallery except on the occasion of the attendance in the gallery of a distinguished representative of another country. It is highly improper at any other time to refer to the gallery. If the practice continues, either of referring to championship teams or to school children in the gallery, every hon. member will feel called upon to do likewise when occasion arises, as otherwise he will feel that his constituents may think
fMr. Howe.]
that he is ignoring them. May I therefore suggest to hon. members that they refrain in the future from making these references.
There is another matter to which I think reference should be made at this time. It is with respect to the procedure regarding the asking of questions. I would refer hon. members to standing order No. 44. This standing order provides for the placing of questions on the order paper, which is the usual procedure, and should be followed whenever possible.
It has nevertheless been the practice in our house to allow a certain number of oral questions, and it is not my purpose to discourage members from asking questions of the proper type, as I feel that these questions create a more lively interest in the business of the house. These oral questions are asked when the orders of the day are called, and are frequently asked without notice. I would, however, emphasize that these oral questions should be asked only in connection with very urgent and important matters-of public concern, and only if it would not be in the public interest, to place them on the order paper and receive answers in accordance with the method provided for in the standing orders. They should always be brief. No debate is permitted, and the reply should be as concise as possible. The questions should not be prefaced by the reading of letters, telegrams, newspaper extracts or preambles of any kind. See Beauchesne's third edition, paragraphs 297, 298. I ask the co-operation of hon. members in observing these rules.
While I am making these references, may I also take the opportunity of thanking hon. members for the co-operation* which they have given; me in* my endeavour to enforce the rule which prohibits the reading by private members of previously prepared speeches. On February 20 of this year I reminded hon. members of the rule, and for a short time it was generally observed. However, during the debate on the budget a very considerable number of members reverted to the undesirable practice of reading their speeches. The reading of long speeches, especially by private members, would not be tolerated at Westminster, and I might point out that we would be required to follow the usages and customs of the British house if our standing orders did not prohibit the reading of speeches. The House of Commons is not a debating society nor an assembly which is gathered together to listen to the reading of essays. It is a forum where members may express themselves freely in accordance with the established rules on all matters of public interest.

I believe that during this session fewer speeches have been read than in former sessions, but I am very hopeful that the practice of reading speeches, except in the case of government statements or important statements by the leader of the opposition or by leaders of other groups, will be wholly discontinued.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 335, respecting Industrial Loan and Finance Corporation.-Mr. Macnaughton.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport. According to the press, a committee has been set up to study the reasons-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: There you go.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I be permitted to suggest to hon. members that in asking questions they should endeavour from today onward to follow the rule strictly,


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, may I also suggest that from today onward the ruling should be made by you and not by members by suppression of speech.


Mr. Sinclair:: It should not be a speech.
It should be a question.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to address a
question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: You are all right so far.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Will he ask the Minister of Transport to keep the house informed as to the recommendations of the committee set up to investigate the wrecks on the Canadian National Railways?


Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: I will.



INQUIRY AS TO SATURDAY CLOSING OF SMALLER STATIONS IN NEW BRUNSWICK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. H. Hatfield (Victoria-Carleton):: I
should like to ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Transport whether it is correct that all the smaller stations on the Canadian National in New Brunswick will be closed all day Saturday after June 1. 80709-223
Inquiries of the Ministry


William Moore Benidickson: The
hon. gentleman has just sent over to me a telegram indicating that one station at least is to be closed on Saturdays. In order to determine whether or not this is the policy on a broad basis I shall make the necessary inquiries and see that the hon. member is provided with an answer in due course.



PROVISION OF RADIO COMMUNICATION IN NEWFOUNDLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Can
the parliamentary assistant tell me whether approval has yet been given for the installation of radio communication between Colinet island and the mainland and a number of other communities in Newfoundland, as was promised by the minister during the discussion of the estimates?


William Moore Benidickson: The
hon. member was good enough to give the department notice of this question; but in view of the fact that this question was raised on the estimates and the hon. member is reported as estimating that it would involve an expenditure of only $600 or $700; in view of the fact that the Minister of Transport indicated that this was being considered as a 1951 budget proposition for the Canadian National Railways, and in view of Your Honour's recent instructions, I wait for you, sir, to indicate whether or not an answer should be given now, or whether the question should be placed upon the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: If the parliamentary assistant has the information, I think he should give it now.


William Moore Benidickson: I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. member that this is a project which I believe has been approved by the Canadian National for development in Newfoundland some time this year.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, first pausing to congratulate him on having become Dr. Abbott. I have given notice of my question. It refers to a statement made by the minister recently showing a surplus of $121 million for the month of April, or four times his budget estimate for the whole year.
3496	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the hon. member to put his question.


Mr. Graydon:: He is diagnosing it tor the doctor.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: My question is with respect to the minister's words when he says that these figures are not to be taken as indicative-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This is just a very short explanation of what the minister said. He said that these figures are not to be taken as indicative of the probable result of the fiscal year as a whole.
My question is: If these figures are as misleading as the minister evidently considers them to be-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: That is a speech.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: -is it not
possible for the department to make a statement in a form less calculated to confuse and mislead the public mind?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that questions at this'time should not be questions that lead to debate or are provocative.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I thank the hon. member both for giving me notice of his brief urgent question, and for his felicitations on my being made a doctor.
I have so many in my department that it is splendid to be one myself.
Answering the first question, the monthly statements which I issue with respect to revenues and expenditures are, I hope, always clear. They are certainly not misleading, as my hon. friend would appear to indicate. If the form could be more helpful we will see what we can do about that; but it is the usual factual statement of receipts and disbursements issued once a month. I have been in the habit at times of issuing some explanation with it, pointing out that one swallow does not make a summer and that it is well to wait until the end of the year before coming to a conclusion as to the final results.


Gordon Graydon: A nice bedside manner,
doctor.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have a supplementary question to ask the Minister of Finance which I am sure is in order. Does not the minister think his figures, whether misleading or not, entirely bear out what was suggested from this side of the 

house some time ago, that he could well afford to do without the increase in the sales tax?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Oh, by no means.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, based on a press item which I need not read. Is the government considering the setting up of a special committee, similar to last year's committee on old age security, to study and report upon a program of national health insurance?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I answered that question earlier this session. The answer is no.



CUSTOMS ACT


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue) moved: the third reading of Bill No. 198, to amend the Customs Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the third time and passed.



PETITION OF RIGHT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, May 28, consideration in committee of Bill No. 192, to amend the Petition of Right Act-Mr. Garson-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 1-Filing of petition.
John George Diefenbaker: Last evening the
minister spoke of the subject being placed in a position of equality with the crown. Any action the individual may desire to take against the crown must be taken in the exchequer court. The crown, however, may take proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction of any province. When the crown chooses to take proceedings in a court set up within a province-the court of king's bench, the supreme court, trial division, or the county court-the subject may raise matters in defence as against the crown but is denied the right to counter-claim. That places the subject in an impossible position,

and I suggest for the consideration of the minister that a change is due in that respect. Where the crown chooses to accept the jurisdiction of a court other than the exchequer court and commences its action there, the citizen should not be placed in such a position that a counter-claim may not be presented in that court. This is a matter which might well be considered by the law officers of the crown.


Mr. Garson:: I do not think my hon.
friend quoted my remarks accurately, so perhaps for the record I had better repeat what I said as reported at page 3479 of Hansard:
The purpose of this legislation is to place the crown in right of Canada in petition of right proceedings in the exchequer court in substantially the same position as an ordinary litigant.
That is what this bill does. My hon. friend raises a question which I think he will admit is quite different from that which is involved in this bill, namely, that in those infrequent cases in which the crown chooses another court in which to sue the subject, consideration should be given to enabling the litigant against whom such suit is taken in that other court to raise such defences or offsets as are available to him in the exchequer court. I have no hesitation in saying that we should be very glad to give my hon. friend's suggestion due consideration, but it is hardly relevant to the bill before the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: On the narrow ground of relevancy to the matter in issue here, I am not in disagreement with the minister. But when so much ado is made about the position of a citizen in his relation in litigation-


Stuart Sinclair Garson: In the exchequer court.


John George Diefenbaker: -in the exchequer court, yes; but most laymen would not get the distinction that lawyers would make in the use of the words "the exchequer court". I know of one or more cases in which the defendant has been unable properly to defend himself in the court chosen as the forum by the crown, by reason of the fact he was unable to make a counter-claim.
Let me refer again to the matter I mentioned last evening. Under this legislation, parliament is actually divesting the crown of one of its most ancient prerogatives without having secured the consent of the crown to the legislation. I mentioned that because, after all, the king is one of the three component parts of parliament. The king, it is true, acts upon the advice of his privy council; nevertheless there are certain cases in which the king is freed from acting on the advice of his council.
80709-223i
Petition of Right Act
My reading of the constitutional development of kingship indicates that this prerogative is not a mere fiction or formality, but rather one of the most prized positions that kingship holds, not only by virtue of tradition, but also by reason of the fact that the king occupies so important a position in the constitutional development of the country. Last evening the member for Rosetown-Biggar said that, after all, we have not a king in Canada. That is scarcely in accordance with the constitutional development about which I have heard boasting in this house in recent years, particularly since the Statute of Westminster. To those who say that the king occupies an unimportant position and is merely a symbol, the answer is that so long as there is a king there can be no dictatorship within the British commonwealth. The king is above politics; he chooses his advisers following the decision made by the electors; in fact, he determines who shall be his prime minister and his first citizen.
That kingship is no mere symbol, and that the king has tremendous influence was indicated in England in 1922 or 1923, when everyone in the Conservative party believed that the king would call Earl Curzon to be prime minister, but the king chose to call Mr. Baldwin to that office. I repeat that the office of kingship is no mere formality. It is a symbol which binds us together. But in addition under our constitutional development, the kingship denies the possibility of there ever being a dictatorship so long as that kingship exists, and so long as the king carries out that responsibility which rests with him and no one else. Therefore I ask that nothing be done by this parliament which would in any way appear to detract or subtract from one of the prerogatives of kingship, namely, that the king can do no wrong. This principle antedates cabinet responsibility and all that cabinet responsibility means. The significance of it is that the king is above the law by reason of his prerogative right of not being subject to the king's courts.
The minister has had the opinion of the law officers of the crown, and I have done my duty. But certainly one can take Hansard after Hansard back to 1835, and wherever there has been any removal or subtraction of the right of kingship-indeed, even a change of title to be given to His Majesty-the announcement was made by the king's minister that His Majesty was willing to accept whatever decision was made by parliament. Even when Edward VIII abdicated in 1936 that formula was used, and he in fact con- 1 sented, as the constitutional monarch, to the ]

I	Petition of Right Act
removal from him of all his prerogatives before parliament accepted his abdication.


Mr. Hosking:: Since this debate has been a legal member's paradise, as an engineer I should like to take this opportunity of asking the member for Lake Centre a question. Is he in favour of a citizen who has a judgment against him not satisfying that judgment because he is working for the crown? In my riding there is a man who has a judgment against him for approximately $3,000, but he refuses to pay it because he is working for the crown. I suggest to the Minister of Justice that this is a most unfair situation. If the member for Lake Centre is proposing to have that condition continued, I hope that the minister in his fairness will see that there is some legislation brought in which will compel a citizen of this country to pay his debts when employed by the crown.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I pass that question on to the Minister of Justice, whose responsibility it is to recommend whether or not that should be done.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question of my hon. friend from Wellington South is that the federal crown' is not at the present time bound by a garnisheeing order. I believe that is what the hon. member has in mind. The gentleman against whom the judgment is obtained is, I take it, an employee of the federal government. In an effort to collect the judgment it is desired to take out an order garnishing his salary. One of the reasons for the fact that the federal crown is not bound by a garnisheeing order is the great administrative difficulty of acknowledging and taking care of those orders from all parts of Canada. But I think there is considerable merit in the point raised by the hon. member. It is a matter to which careful consideration will be given.


Mr. Fleming:: It is both interesting and refreshing, Mr. Chairman, to hear the Minister of Justice this afternoon drawing attention to certain limitations of the bill now before the committee. Last evening, if one is to judge from his remarks in certain places, one would have thought that in its effect this was a broad and sweeping measure. As is shown by the report of the proceedings in the committee, at page 3489 of Hansard, the minister complained that the hon. member for Lake Centre had put a rather narrow interpretation on the effect of the measure. At the bottom of the page the minister is reported as follows:
While I am on that subject, I believe that, in fairness to our own legislation, I should point out that the hon. member for Lake Centre rather 
tended to leave the impression that the scope of our act was quite narrow. I believe I should point out what it does cover.
Then the minister went on to deal with some of the sections of the Exchequer Court Act, a statute which has such a direct bearing on the subject now under discussion. But this afternoon the minister has done a service in assisting the committee to realize that the measure, after all, is somewhat narrow in its terms and in its effect. He has drawn attention to certain narrowing words that he used in introducing the measure, as reported at page 3479 of Hansard, when he said:
The purpose of this legislation is to place the crown in right of Canada in petition of right proceedings in the exchequer court in substantially the same position as an ordinary litigant.
It is highly commendable that the minister this afternoon should have placed such great emphasis on those words "in petition of right proceedings in the exchequer court," because otherwise the effect of the statement made by the minister last night, it seems to me, was to exaggerate considerably the effect of the present measure. The minister has now helped the committee to see the bill in its proper perspective which, after all, is quite a narrow one.
In effect, this measure deals with a procedural question and eliminates a step in procedure. It does not affect the substantive law. If the principle upon which the government is proceeding is sound, and I believe it is, we should have had with this measure corresponding amendments to the substantive law of Canada, so that what we are doing here, in deference to a principle, should have real substance and not be simply a change in what is, after all, little more than procedure and form. While commending the present measure as far as it goes-and I regret that it does not go very far-I wish to record my regret that the government has not gone as far as it might well have gone, and ought to have gone, in view of the soundness of the principle supporting this type of legislation.
I could not help recalling a debate that occurred in the house on December 13, 1945. At that time the present Prime Minister was minister of justice, and I asked him this question on his estimates, as reported at page 3467 of Hansard of that session:
What progress, if any, is being made in the department with reference to the matter of petitions of right? It has been such a sore point for so long, and I think the courts and the bar are looking for some leadership in this matter. I know the Minister of Justice has had this matter brought actively before him for a long time. When may we look for some action in the direction of elimination of petitions of right in actions against the crown?

And the answer came back, very swift and very firm:


Mr. St. Laurent:: Not while I am Minister of
Justice.
It is evident that since the present Prime Minister ceased to be minister of justice there has been a change of heart on his part; and I think the committee will be glad to see such a change of heart on the part of the government, because the position taken by the then minister of justice, the present Prime Minister, is, I think, a position which the government, in introducing the present measure, has shown to have been entirely unsound. I am glad the government has made sufficient progress at least to have discarded the position taken in 1945 by the Prime Minister and to have introduced the present measure, limited though its effect may be.
A good deal has been said in this discussion about the historical background of the immunities of the crown, and about the way in which the procedure for petition of right has grown up and has been observed for centuries. An interesting description of those immunities was given by Chief Justice Duff in the case of the King v. Central Railway Signal Company, 1933 Supreme Court Reports, where, at page 564, after reviewing the immunities enjoyed by the crown in respect of torts and certain other forms of action, the chief justice says this:
It has sometimes been said that this immunity of the sovereign from processual coercion, "the grandest of his immunities," to use the words of Maitland . . . rests upon the principle that the king by his writ cannot command himself, and this was laid down in the Sadler's case; the immunity has also been ascribed to the fact that the courts are the king's own courts and to the same principle as that of the immunity of the feudal seigneur from process in his seigneurial court.
What the government is proposing in this measure is that there should be a measure designed to strip the crown of some of the procedural or formal aspects of what has here been called the crown's "immunity from processual coercion", "the grandest of the immunities of the crown". If the principle of this bill is sound, it is sound enough to be extended to the substantive law, where it should be given full recognition. It is not given full recognition today.
In his remarks last night the Minister of Justice dwelt at some length on some of the subsections of section 19 of the Exchequer Court Act; but I think the Minister of Justice will agree that there are still great areas of what would be liability in the case of an ordinary litigant, in which fields the crown is still immune, regardless of however tortious the acts of the crown or the crown's servants
Petition of Right Act
might have been, if those acts had been committed by a private litigant or by servants or employees of a private litigant.
There is much to be said in this day and generation for a discarding of this type of immunity of the crown. We recognized the same principle last year in the Statute Law Amendment Act, when so many emanations of the crown in the form of statutory corporations were brought, by enactment of parliament, under liability to action in the courts for breach of law. That was a sound type of legislation. It is a recognition not simply of the soundness of a principle but also of the fact that, as the power of government grows, expands, and is wielded, more and more of the area of what years ago had been regarded as fields closed to government and belonging exclusively to fields of operation on the part of private citizens is now enclosed within the scope of governmental operations. Therefore, old principles and old immunities which had a sound bearing in days when the activities of the crown, so far as the ordinary business of life was concerned, were on a very narrow scale indeed, do not fit the situation that obtains today, when governments are operating in so many fields of what were previously exclusively private endeavour. Last year's amendment was sound; this amendment is sound, but I still say that it does not go far enough in bringing about justice and fair play to litigants.
The hon. member for Lake Centre referred this afternoon to a situation where, in an action brought by the crown against a private litigant, the litigant is not free to make a counter-claim in the proceedings. That smacks of injustice and a lack of a sense of fair play in days such as these. I do not believe that the people of Canada have any patience in these days with immunities of the crown which have no sensible bearing upon the hard facts of governmental operations.
The Canadian Bar Association has1 for years been pressing the government on this subject.
Sir, there are good precedents for widening such provisions as we find in the present section of the bill under discussion. Some of the provinces have taken wholesome steps in this regard. One that I have had some experience with, and which the minister and his advisers may find interesting, is section 87 of the Ontario Highway Improvement Act, with respect to actions arising out of nonrepair of highways. It contains a simple provision, so far as the substantive law is concerned, that the crown shall be liable for damage suffered as a result of non-repair

Petition of Right Act
of the king's highways. It is a plain statement of substantive law; aJid then follow the procedural aspects of the matter dealt with in succeeding subsections, in which it is provided that any actions of that kind may be brought in the ordinary way in the courts and the defendant may be described as His Majesty in the right of the province of Ontario represented by the minister of highways. Therefore you have the complete code-


Mr. Lesage:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I draw your attention, to the fact that -clause 1 was carried last night, as is indicated on- page 3491 of Hansard, where the following took place:


The Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Carried. Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: No.
And then the house adjourned. But clause 1 was carried. I believe that the hon. member is discussing the principle of the bill.


Gordon Graydon: It is the Votes and
Proceedings that govern.


Jean Lesage: Votes and Proceedings do not mention the clauses separately.


Gordon Graydon: On that point, lots of times Hansard is wrong and Votes and Proceedings are always right.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: There is no mention of sections of bills in Votes and Proceedings. Votes and Proceedings do not mention sections that are carried in committee. I was under the impression that the clause was carried; it is not mentioned in Hansard that the clause is agreed to; but my impression is that it was carried. I would ask the hon. member to conclude his remarks as soon as possible.


Donald Methuen Fleming: With respect, I was not in the
house at the time that happened, but I was given to understand that in the ordinary course you asked, at the time of a pause, "Shall the clause carry". Some members on one side said "carried", and some members in this part of the house said "no".


Jean Lesage: The -chairman said "carried", and he called clause 2.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The chairman- often says "carried" when there is not a final adoption. He frequently says that to ascertain if there is to be any further discussion on the item. That is what he was doing at that time.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Yes, but when I called clause 2 nobody asked that we revert to clause 1.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: It was carried all right.
[Mr. Fleming.!


Joseph-Alfred Dion: When I called clause 2 there was no objection.


Mr. Fulton:: If I may be permitted to say a word, I would ask the committee to look at pages 3491 and 3492, where I made the following remarks.
Since it is close to eleven o'clock, Mr, Chairman, will the minister accommodate us by allowing us to call it eleven o'clock and give this matter consideration overnight?
I m-ade that request under the impression that clause 1, on which this point has been raised, and to which I was asking that consideration be given, was still before the committee.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Since there is some doubt about it I will call clause 1 and -allow the hon. member to go on- with his speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Thank you; I was nearly finished, anyway.


Alphonse Fournier: Hear, hear.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I think it will be found that no time ha-s been lost. I had just finished mentioning what I thought was a useful kind of precedent from one of the provinces in a situation of this kind to deal with the substantive law, giving recognition-, with resipect to the substantive law as well as to the procedural law, to a sound principle.
During the war we had certain orders in council dealing with claims brought against the -crown arising out of operations in Canada of the armed1 forces, and- these orders in council were carried forward into peacetime. You will find them in, P.C. 43/1880 of May 14, 1947, amended by P.C. 254J/2727 of May 28, 1949. This first -order in -council -contains this as the third clause:
Every claim against the crown arising out of any death or injury to the person or to property alleged to result from the negligence of any officer or servant of the crown while acting within the scope of his duties or employment shall be dealt with under this order.
And clause 2-D of the order defines officer or servant of the crown as follows:
"Officer or servant of the crown" means an officer or member of the naval, military or air forces of Canada, or an employee of the department.
Then follow the detailed' provisions governing -procedure in claims arising under clause 3.
It seems to me that the time has come when there should be an effective consolidation, with the necessary broadening of the provisions, of our law, whether statutory or in order in council -form, as in the case of these two orders in council, and others I believe as well, to meet the needs of the present day, and also to give effective codification to the

substantive law in relation to liability of the crown. I expect some hon. members have had experience with these orders in council that were in effect during the war, and with perhaps the two to which I have just referred, which came into effect after the war. I think the experience of any who have had cases under these orders in council has been unsatisfactory. They must have come to the conclusion that these are entirely unsatisfactory provisions for the statement of the liability of the crown for acts of the officers or members of the armed forces of Canada or employees of the Department of National Defence.
I remember a case that occurred in connection with naval gunnery practice in lake Ontario, close to fishing claims very near to Toronto, where great damage was done to the fishing as well as to the nets and other property of the licensee of those fishing claims. The affidavits of about eight eye-witnesses of the shelling and the consequent damage to fishing and fish nets and equipment were submitted: to the Department of National Defence in due course. I regret to say that the matter received pretty summary treatment in the Department of National Defence, and the claim was not entertained.
There is only one way in which private claimants will at best feel that they have had a fair hearing of a case or that justice has been done, and that is if they are allowed to take their cases to the courts for adjudication. If the judicial processes offered by the crown to govern disputes between private litigants are good enough for them, they ought equally to be good enough for the government which is largely responsible for prescribing those judicial processes for the settlement of the claims of others. Our conception of the rule of law should not be impaired or restricted by any narrow limitations which trace themselves back to regal immunities which simply do not fit the hard facts of times such as these, when governmental activities cover so many fields.
I urge upon the minister the broadening of the substantive law by statute, and I urge upon him also that he take orders in council of this kind under review to see to it that the government, having made a sound departure from the untenable and unsound position taken by the present Prime Minister in December, 1945, go further and, rather than contenting itself with half measures or a half-hearted recognition of a sound principle, bring in a measure that will give full and complete recognition to the desirability of extending the judicial process in the broadest possible sense to the settlement of just claims brought against the crown.
Petition of Right Act


Mr. Stewart (Yorkton):: I notice from the remarks of the hon. member for Lake Centre and the previous speaker that apparently the Minister of Justice will never be able to satisfy the official opposition in this house, nor will any other minister of the crown. I would point out that no government supported by my friends in the opposition has done anything to solve this problem. The Minister of Justice is to be complimented upon going as far as he has gone in this matter. This is the first real step that has been taken to bring in legislation of this kind.
So far as the attachment of debts is concerned, I understand that even in Ontario under a Tory government you cannot yet attach debts; all you can do is send a notice to the attorney general and he may hold up the salary for a while.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That is an entirely different matter.


Mr. Siewart (Yorkion):: There is a Conservative government in Ontario, and the creditor is not able to collect his debts as this procedure will to a certain extent permit in connection with the federal government.


Gordon Graydon: You have enough trouble in Saskatchewan.


Alan Carl Stewart: That is all right. I usually manage to get a rise out of some of these Tories seated to my left.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the hon. member saying that the bill now under discussion will have the effect of permitting the attachment of debts owing by a servant of the federal government?


Alan Carl Stewart: No, I am not contending that for a minute. I am going to deal with that next. This bill does give a certain remedy against the federal government that was never given by any Tory government that I know of. In connection with the attachment of debts, the Minister of Justice has said that the matter is being given consideration. As I say, in Ontario there can be no attachment of debts under that Tory government. I believe that federal civil servants should pay their debts if they are able to. I think every citizen of Canada feels that way about it. They should not have any exemption from attachment any more than any other citizen if they are able to pay.
I know there are administrative difficulties, but in connection with the railroads, which are spread across the dominion, debts can be attached. They wire that the attachment has been served at one of their branches. In Saskatchewan you can attach debts, and even the provincial payroll can be attached. I trust

Petition of Right Act
that the minister will follow this up. Instead of the attachment having to be served the last day of the month, I suggest that it be permitted to be served at any time which will give sufficient time to notify headquarters that the attachment has been served. I am sure that after considering this whole problem the minister will agree that a federal civil servant who has borrowed money from another citizen of Canada should be required to pay that debt within a reasonable time. We might limit the amount of the attachment so that the civil servant could have so much of his salary every month, but the rest of the salary should be subject to the attachment.
If the attachment were made applicable the first week of the month, or in any event in sufficient time to notify Ottawa, the administrative staff could figure it out, the money could be held and the debt required to be paid within a reasonable time. I know the minister will give this matter his consideration, because despite what the official opposition has said, the Minister of Justice has made the first real advance in the way of making collections from the crown on damage actions.


Gordon Graydon: The hon. member is too easily satisfied.


Alan Carl Stewart: My hon. friend sat here for years and was so satisfied that he kept mum under Tory governments that got nowhere.


William Joseph Browne: There is one truth in the remarks of the previous speaker; whenever he rises he tries to get a rise out of somebody else.
A number of members seem to think that the step taken by the Minister of Justice is a wonderful victory for the ordinary citizen. It is quite the contrary, because it is an intrusion upon the privilege of the crown to protect the citizen. As has been stated in the debate by the hon. member for Lake Centre and the Minister of Justice, the petition of right is a traditional right of the citizen to address directly the king. It goes back to the thirteenth century, and was intended to protect the citizen against the government.
There is a great deal of loose thinking in connection with constitutional matters, and people easily confuse the government with the king. The fact is that the king is a separate branch of government. The hon. member for Lake Centre raised the point that the king's representative should have been consulted before this legislation was introduced. The present section 4 reads:
The petition shall be left with the Secretary of State of Canada, for submission to the governor general, so that he may consider it and, if he thinks

fit, grant his fiat that right be done; and nothing shall be payable by the suppliant on leaving the petition.
As the Minister of Justice and other lawyers know, in the courts of equity in England the king exercises a similar function. People who are unable to get satisfaction in the courts of law can apply directly to the king and the lord chancellor, and the lord chancellor grants the petition. There is the right of the citizen to apply directly to the king. Therefore this is not a great victory on the part of the citizen.
As the hon. member for Eglinton has said, in these hard times the government is rather less determined to prevent the citizen from obtaining his full rights. Gradually a right has been given to the citizen, and that right is being enlarged so that he can take actions in more cases than formerly. Therefore I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he has given any further consideration to the point raised by the hon. member for Lake Centre last night, that the matter should have been brought to the attention of the governor general and his consent should have been signified formally before the legislation was introduced.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: As I indicated in m,y remarks last night, the king's pleasure in this matter will be signified in the house on or before third reading.


William Joseph Browne: Are you
satisfied that is correct?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I think out of an abundance
of caution it is a wise precaution to take.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On the title.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the Minister of Justice
had an opportunity to give consideration to the matter I raised last night arising out of a recent decision of the exchequer court?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes. Would my hon. friend
mind repeating his question? I read it carefully in Hansard, but it was in two parts and I was not completely sure that I got his point. If he will repeat it now, I shall be glad to answer it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It was whether some safeguard should be inserted in the statutes to prevent the possibility arising of, for instance, one member of the armed forces suing another member of the armed forces or the crown for injury or death occurring during the course of his employment in the armed forces. I understand it is not desired to create that situation, but I believe it is one which is liable to result from the position we are now in.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I appreciate my hon. friend
restating his position, but I rather gathered the impression from his remarks last night that he was relating this question to some extent to the matter of negligence. For example, he said at page 3490 of Hansard:
I appreciate the argument of the Minister of Justice with respect to the difficulty of proving negligence in those cases to which I referred arising particularly within the armed forces.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: He continued:
I agree that that would be exceedingly difficult on occasion. But I should imagine that there are other cases where it would not be impossible by any means to establish negligence.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is right.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I will try to answer what I
take to be my hon. friend's point, and if I fail to do so I hope he will draw my attention to my failure so that I may cover it completely in the end. To begin with, I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday to the effect that, in so far as section 19 (c) of the Exchequer Court Act and the liability thereunder is concerned, the crown is only liable in tort if negligence by an officer or servant of the crown acting within the scope of his duties or employment is first established. The case to which my hon. friend referred as being covered by the clipping which he sent to me bears that out. That was the case of Dame Elizabeth Cornell Oakes v. His Majesty the King. The first paragraph of the judgment of Mr. Justice Cameron of the exchequer court refers to the point of negligence in these terms:
This is a petition of right in which the suppliant claims damages from the respondent. On June 5, 1945, George Walsh Oakes, then an airman in the Royal Canadian Air Force, was a passenger in a motor vehicle owned by the respondent: that vehicle was struck by a train of the Canadian National Railways in Montreal east, and Oakes was killed. At the trial it was admitted that L.A.C. Oakes was then on duty, that the motor vehicle was operated by L.A.C. R. E. Hitsman, a member of the air force of Canada and then acting within the scope of his military duties, and that the said accident occurred because of the fault and negligence of the said Hitsman.
Therefore nothing turns, in the point raised by my hon. friend's question, upon whether there was negligence. In fact there was negligence in that case. My hon. friend's question must turn on another point and if I understand correctly the point that my hon. friend is driving at, I think perhaps I- can answer his question in these terms. I will go back a bit in order to cover the preliminary ground. In Meloche v. The King (1948) 4 D.L.R., 828, Mr. Justice Anger of the exchequer court held that a petition of right will not lie under section 19 (c) of the Exchequer Court Act for death or injury to
Petition of Right Act
a member of the forces in the course of his employment on the ground that parliament had by the Pension Act provided a special remedy for such death or injury; that is even where there may be negligence, and which otherwise would make the crown actionable.
In Bender v. The King (1947) S.C.R. 172, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a government employee who had received compensation under the Government Employees Compensation Act was nevertheless entitled to claim damages under said section 19 (c). Perhaps I should explain that the Government Employees Compensation Act is an act passed by this parliament to provide for federal civil servants a protection analogous to that which is enjoyed by workmen under the workmen's compensation acts of the various provinces. The Government Employees Compensation Act is another reason why comparisons between the liability of the crown under the Canadian Exchequer Court Act and under analogous British legislation are rather invidious because here is a whole field of torts arising out of the relationship of master and servant which is pretty well completely covered by the Government Employees Compensation Act in this country.
After the judgment in Bender v. The King, the Government Employees Compensation Act was revised by chapter 18 of the statutes of 1947, and section 9, subsection 5, thereof now reads as follows:
No employee or dependent of such employee shall have a claim against His Majesty or any officer, servant or agent of His Majesty, except for compensation under this act, in any case where an accident happens to such employee in the course of his employment under such circumstances as entitle him or his dependents to compensation under this act.
That is simply the principle followed in workmen's compensation acts, that once workmen's compensation acts are put on the statute books all claims based upon negligence as between master and servant, and as between one employee and another employee, are washed out, and the provision made by that act in the form of workmen's compensation insurance takes their place. Coming down to the case of Oakes v. The King to which my hon. friend has referred, Mr. Justice Cameron of the Exchequer Court of Canada, on May 17 last, handed down his decision in that case holding that he was bound by the reasoning of the supreme court in the Bender case to overrule the judgment of Mr. Justice Anger in the Meloche case. Therefore, by that process of reasoning, he awarded Mrs. Oakes, the wife of the airman killed in the course of duty as a result of

Petition of Right Act
admitted negligence, the sum of $20,000 in addition to any rights she might have in regard to pension and the like.
That is the situation as it stands today. If I understand my hon. friend's point- though I have not been too clear about it up to the present-it is that we should consider whether section 19 (c) does not go too far in the light of this judgment in the Oakes case, in that it will be imposing quite a burden on the taxpayer if, in addition to all the benefits under the Pension Act et cetera that may be available to the dependents of any member of the armed forces in the event of his death while on duty, it should be possible as well to enter suit against the crown and recover substantial damages, as for example the amount of $20,000 in this case. Is that not my hon. friend's point?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes, that is the point.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Our position in relation to
that matter is this. The judgment in this case was handed down on May 17, a very short time ago. We are now considering whether it would be advisable to appeal. It is quite a long judgment, and we have not reached a decision on that point. If it were appealed and affirmed, then I should think that, by a parity of reasoning with our action in connection with the Government Employees Compensation Act, we would have to give consideration to bringing an amendment before this parliament. If on the other hand the judgment in the Oakes case were appealed and overruled by the Supreme Court of Canada and the effect of the judgment in the Meloche case re-established, no consideration of amendment would be required. My hon. friend has said that I understand his question correctly. Does this answer his question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: I think it does, because I
understand from the minister that consideration is being given the whole matter, and that was the point I wished to raise. I did not mean that the minister should immediately introduce some amendment just because I suggested it. I did feel that in the light of these cases particularly, and in the light of the provision that was placed in the British statute dealing with this general subject, certainly the time had come when we should give the matter consideration. I am sorry if I did not make my point immediately clear. However, the minister has understood it, and he has certainly satisfied me by saying that consideration is being given the matter, which consideration may possibly lead to the introduction of an amendment. That takes care of the point I wished to make.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I noted a few moments ago that the minister said it was his intention before third reading to indicate either the royal or vice regal consent to this legislation. I have no serious objection to the minister doing that, particularly when he puts it on the basis he does, namely out of the abundance of caution; but I should like to take a moment or two to express my own view that this course is quite unnecessary and I think it is unfair both to the houses of parliament and the crown.
With regard to my first point I suggest that in our legislative functions we are governed by the British North America Act, which contains only two qualifications with respect to the way in which we pass bills. Those two qualifications are found in sections 53 and 54. Section 53 provides that money bills must originate in the House of Commons. Section 54 is the section which says that before any money bill is proceeded with the approval of the governor general must be stated in parliament. The only reason royal consent or approval to some bills is indicated is that with respect to those particular bills, that is money bills, it is actually required by the British North America Act. Frankly, if it were not in that act I should think the practice might be reconsidered for a reason I shall indicate in a moment. But why should we go beyond what is required by the British North America Act and bring in a formula with respect to a bill which is not required either by the British North America Act or by the standing orders of this house?
The other point I wish to make is that I regard it as unfair, both to the houses of parliament and to the crown, to follow the proposed procedure. After all it is in parliament, in the Senate and House of Commons, that these decisions are really made. To carry forward the fiction that we make only such decisions as we are permitted by the crown to make is I think unfair to the two houses of parliament and out of keeping with the democratic practice under which we in parliament initiate and pass legislation. Similarly I think it is unfair to the crown. The Minister of Justice brought in this bill, moved first reading, moved second reading, and has piloted it through the committee stage. Obviously the government decided to go ahead with this bill. The House of Commons has accepted it; indeed we have approved of it right along. Now the minister says that just before third reading he is going to announce to parliament that the crown gives its approval to our considering this bill. Well, that would seem to mean that the minister has personally consulted either the king or the governor general and has requested that approval. Under our modern

set-up the crown will not refuse such a request; in other words the crown is told what to do, and I submit that we are going through forms just for the sake of keeping up forms which are not necessary and are a bit unfair to both parties. We keep up the form with regard to the introduction of money bills because it is spelled out in the British North America Act. But why go further? Why make such an announcement in connection with this bill, which is not a money bill? The British North America Act also requires that before any bill which has been passed by both houses of parliament becomes law, it must have the royal assent given in the name of the king. That will come later; surely that final royal assent is sufficient.
As I have said, I have no serious objection to the minister following the course he has indicated in response to the request that was made of him by the official opposition, but I still feel that it is quite unnecessary.


William Joseph Browne: Would the hon. member indicate how it is unfair to the crown?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought I had indicated
why I felt it was unfair. When the crown indicates its approval, supposedly the crown does so of its own initiative and free will. In this case the crown is only doing it because the Minister of Justice has made the request, and the chances are that the minister will be doing it himself, on the crown's behalf.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the governor
general, having been informed of the purport of Bill 192, an act to amend the Petition of Right Act, gives his consent as far as His Majesty's, interests are concerned that the house may do therein as they shall think fit.


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



QUEBEC SAVINGS BANKS ACT


Stuart Sinclair Garson: the second reading of Bill No. 338, to amend the Quebec Savings Banks Act.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
parliamentary assistant say a word about this?
Quebec Savings Banks Act


James Sinclair: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for just three very minor amendments to the Quebec Savings Banks Act. This act applies to two small savings banks in the province of Quebec. One is the Montreal City and District Savings Bank, and the other is the Quebec Savings Bank. Both are old banks, one having been incorporated in 1846 and the other in 1848. They are not commercial banks in the ordinary sense of the word and do not come under the Bank Act. This Quebec Savings Banks Act applies quite severe restrictions on the investments and loans which these banks may make, such as no commercial loans, and personal loans being limited to $1,000. At least fifty per cent of the bank deposits must be in government bonds. The banks have been permitted to invest in the bonds or debentures of a manufacturing company, provided, among other things, there have been paid upon the common stock of the company regular dividends of at least four per cent per annum for the five years preceding the investment. In the case of no par value shares there must have been a dividend of at least four dollars per share per annum the five years preceding the investment. The banks are also permitted to lend money without collateral security to certain companies if, among other things, similar rates of dividends have been paid on the common or no par value stock.
The reason for this amendment is that, whereas in other days the common practice was for common stock to be worth around $100, and the four dollar dividend represented a rate of return of four per cent, there has been today a splitting of the stock down to values of $25 to make it more popular. The four dollar dividend demanded would, therefore, mean a higher rate of return. It is proposed to amend both of these provisions to require that the dividend rate upon the common shares in each year of the five-year period must be at least four per cent of the average value at which the shares were carried in the capital stock of the company during the year in which the dividend was paid. I might say that a similar amendment was made to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.
Under the act as it stands today these two savings banks are allowed to lend up to five per cent of their deposits on first mortgages. This has worked out pretty well, and they ask that they be now allowed to lend up to ten per cent. That, in fact, is the third amendment. If there is any desire on the
3506	HOUSE OF
Veterans Insurance Act part of the opposition that this bill be referred to the banking and commerce committee, I would so move.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would be grateful if the parliamentary assistant would refer it to the banking and commerce committee. So many of these things look very simple, and they may be very simple, but an opportunity is afforded in the committee to study them.


James Sinclair: I would so move, that the bill be referred to the banking and commerce committee.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the procedure would be for the bill to receive second reading, and then instead of referring it to a committee of the whole, refer it to the banking and commerce committee. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Veterans Insurance Act to extend the scope of the act and the period during which a contract of insurance may be entered into; to increase the amount payable at time of death and, in certain cases, to permit the estate of the insured to receive the full amount payable under the policy contract; to provide for the insertion in the policy contract of a war clause in certain cases; and generally to improve the administration of the act.


Mr. Brooks:: Is the minister going to make any explanation of this?


Mr. Lapoinie:: Mr. Speaker, any explanation which I shall make of this resolution at this stage necessarily will be quite brief. As hon. members know, the Veterans Insurance Act, which was passed in 1944 and came into force in 1945, authorized the minister to enter into a policy of insurance with world war II veterans, and certain other groups of persons were added by an amendment in 1948. The time during which this authority could be exercised was extended and certain other groups were included. It is proposed now to further extend the period of time during which an insurance contract may be entered into until December 31, 1954. It is also proposed to give a veteran the right to enter into a contract within ten years after his discharge, if that date should be later than December 31, 1954.


One other provision is to authorize the sum of $2,000 to be paid in the event of the death of the insured. Hon. members are probably aware of the fact that, under the act as it stands now, the sum of $1,000 can be paid at the time of death, and the balance of the policy is paid in the form of annuities over a period of five, ten, fifteen or twenty years. In some cases it has been found that this method created certain difficulties in the settlement of the estate and the payment of medical and funeral expenses. It was felt, therefore, that the sum of $2,000 should be substituted for that $1,000.
Another provision which we have in mind is that, if no beneficiary or contingent beneficiary survives the insured, the face value of the policy would be paid to the estate. Under the present act only the insurance money to the extent of the reserve falls into the estate in case the insured dies without beneficiary or contingent beneficiary. We are also clarifying some of the sections in the act. For instance we want to make it clear that in the case where an applicant dies before the contract has been accepted and entered into by the department following his application, and where the premium has been paid, the insurance will be paid, provided it is an application that would have been accepted had the applicant not died before the acceptance. The reason for this change is that all these contracts are processed at headquarters, and there possibly could be some delay during which the insured might die before his application had been examined and accepted.
We are also clarifying the section of the act referring to the waiver of premiums in the event the insured suffers total and permanent disability. Under the present act, when such is the case, premiums are waived. But in the actual administration of the act it has been found exceedingly difficult to define or to determine the question of permanence of a disability and the period during which it has existed. We are therefore intending to make this legislation more easy to administer by specifying in the act that any insured who has suffered total disability continuously for one year will be considered as being totally and permanently disabled for the purpose of the waiver of premiums.
There is also another provision which we wish to introduce, since the question has been raised at various times as to whether insurance contracts under this act come within certain provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act. I think hon. members will recall that the same question arose

with regard to the Veterans Land Act some years ago, and a special section was included in the act so that the veterans of world war II who otherwise qualify, even if they are members of the House of Commons or of the Senate, can benefit under this act.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I thank the minister for his
explanation. I think it has been generally recognized for some time that amendments should be made to this act. It will be before the veterans affairs committee of the house-


Hugues Lapointe: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: -and we will have a better chance there of seeing the officials and of getting further information. I have no further comment to make at the present time.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


William Joseph Browne: What is
the total amount to which insurance is granted now? What is the highest amount?


Hugues Lapointe: The highest amount for which a contract can be entered into is $10,000.


William Joseph Browne: Is it onj an
actuarial basis as in any other insurance company?


Hugues Lapointe: I understand that it is, yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in,
Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 352, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, may we have leave of the house to move the second reading of this bill at this time? This bill is going to the veterans affairs committee, and that is where it will be studied. If hon. members have no objection to our doing that, it would perhaps expedite matters.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I can see no reason why there should be any objection, Mr. Speaker.


Hugues Lapointe: the second reading of Bill No. 352, to amend the Veterans Insurance Act.
Motion agreedi to, bill read the second time and referred to the special committee on veterans affairs.
Post Office Act POST OFFICE ACT



MEASURE TO CONSOLIDATE, CODIFY AND AMEND EXISTING LEGISLATION

Hon. Edouard Rinfrel (Postmaster General) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 322, respecting the Canada Post Office.


George Alexander Drew: Is it the intention of the minister to make a general statement on the motion for second reading?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: This being a complete revision of the Canada Post Office Act, and seeing that all the questions will be discussed separately on the various sections in committee, I thought that it might be more appropriate if I made my statement in committee.


George Alexander Drew: I propose to speak on the motion for second reading, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that it is desirable for the minister to make a statement at this time because I am going to suggest reasons why we should not proceed with second reading until there has been further consideration of this bill.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I am absolutely in the hands of the house. This being a complete revision of the act, and as each section would be discussed1 in committee-


George Alexander Drew: In order that the minister will not misunderstand me, may I explain that I would not be objecting to that procedure were it not for the fact that I feel that there are .certain objections to second reading which I shall put forward.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, as I said when introducing this bill on first reading, its purpose is to bring the post office legislation up to date, to bring its provisions in line with present practices and conditions, to simplify and clarify sections where necessary, to eliminate redundant and unnecessary provisions and to improve the general style and arrangement by reducing the law to a systematic form.
Hon. members will notice that in the printed bill reference is made in the explanatory notes to the relative sections of the existing act, and I want to make it clear that, even where this reference is made, although the essence is the same, the wording may vary in some cases, as an attempt has been made to simplify and clarify the section. It is my intention to ask the Clerk of the House to put on the table a number of copies of the old act so that, although the old act is not reproduced in this present bill, hon. members will be able to follow one section after the other.
There are thirty-nine provisions in the existing act which have been deleted. These include provisions which are now covered by other statutes or which have become obsolete.

Post Office Act
They also include certain extraordinary powers now vested in the Postmaster General and which I think should not be there.
Few people realize that under section 7 (p) of the present act, acting with the approval of the governor in council, the Postmaster General is authorized to impose pecuniary penalties not exceeding $200 for any one offence against any postal regulation, whether the person offending is or is not an officer of the post office. I do not know how long it is since a postmaster general has used this power. I know that I have not. This section is, of course, deleted and the power vested1, as it should be, in the courts of justice.
It might be a shock to the population of Canada to be refused change when they go to buy stamps; but any postmaster refusing to make change would be following the provisions of section 33 of the present act which binds him not to give change and to accept only-and this is the wording of the act- "the exact amount of the postage payable which must be tendered to him in current coin". This has been deleted.
Under section 34 of the present act the governor in council may direct that:
At any port or class of ports vessels shall not be permitted by the officers of customs to enter or break bulk until all letters on board the same have been delivered at the post office, nor until the master has made declaration, in such form as is prescribed, that he has delivered all such letters accordingly.
This also has been done away with.


William Joseph Browne: What is the section?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Section 34 of the present act, which forbids the master of a vessel to allow passengers or cargo out of his vessels until and unless he has made a declaration that he has personally delivered all letters to the post office.
Present section 38 authorizes any person to seize any letters conveyed, received, collected, sent or delivered in violation of the present act.
These are a few of the sections which have been eliminated. I do not wish to burden the house with an enumeration of all the sections that will disappear with the enactment of the present bill.	*
The new bill introduces nine new definitions, fifteen new or amended provisions, eight sections dealing with the post office savings bank, section 47 and following, which are the same as those contained in the present Savings Bank Act, which is repealed by section 78 of the present bill. Section 55 and following dealing with offences and penalties are not strictly speaking new. They

have been recodified and amended in accordance with the form adopted with regard to new or revised acts. Hon. members will notice that sections 55 to 66 inclusive deal with indictable offences and sections 67 to 72 inclusive deal with offences. Section 73 is the penalty section.
It is not my intention, nor would it be proper at this stage, to discuss in detail each of the new provisions, but I am sure it will be noted by the hon. members that a distinction has been made between the administrative powers of the Postmaster General, which have been consolidated under one heading, namely, section 5, and his general powers to make regulations which itemize the outstanding features in regard to which regulations are required, section 6.
In this connection, I would like to draw hon. members' attention to the Postmaster General's power to fix rates. Rates in regard *to letters and publications generally are fixed by statute, by parliament; rates in regard to printed matter, parcel post and fees for services by the Postmaster General by regulation.
As regards letters the Postmaster General under section 8 has an exclusive privilege or a monopoly and it is therefore desirable that there should be parliamentary control of the rates charged the public.
Newspapers and publications are in a special class. Ever since the Post Office Act was enacted in 1867, the charges on newspapers and periodicals have been in the nature of a subsidy rate because they are media for the dissemination of news of religious, scientific, agricultural or current topics. In some cases, certain newspapers are even handled and carried without postal charge. There is, of course, no monopoly of the post office with regard to the handling of newspapers and periodicals. Publishers are at liberty to use whatever means of transportation and handling they may decide upon. Although there is no monopoly, there is, nevertheless, an element of government policy involved and for that reason, in the proposed act, no change has been made in the practice hitherto followed of having the rates on newspapers and periodicals fixed by parliament.
The situation is entirely different in regard to printed matter and parcel post. Government policy is not involved. There is no monopoly on the part of the post office and it is in competition with other agencies. The rates fluctuate and a degree of flexibility is essential in order that they be readily adjustable to take care of varying conditions at all times.

Hon. members will have noticed that the present bill proposes increases in the rates charged on newspapers and periodicals. These increases have been distributed equitably over each class of publication in relation to the strain imposed by each one on the facilities of the post office and to the varying cost of handling each.
In view of the mounting cost of postal operations, the government, in order to meet expenses, has had to increase its postal revenues. Some time ago, on April 2, we effected, by regulation, increases on parcel post, printed matter and registration fees, which could be done by regulation. Today, we are asking parliament to approve a somewhat similar increase on periodicals.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put on Hansard the cost to the Post Office Department of handling newspapers and periodicals, second-class matter. In the last fiscal year which ended March 31-and I might say that the figure for next year will be somewhat higher on account of increases that have been given in wages and transportation costs-the cost of handling newspapers and periodicals was $15,816,015. The revenue we got from newspapers and, periodicals was $3,995,963, leaving a deficit in this one division of the post office of close to $12 million.
Letter rates are not touched but we are providing for the assimilation of war tax to postage in order to conform with the current practice. There is an apparent discrepancy between the new section 10, as to rates, and the old section 21 which mentions only one cent for so-called "drop letters", but the section of the Excise Tax Act providing for the extra 2 cents is repealed by the new section 78 of the Post Office Act.
Dealing now with the "drop letter" rate within certain municipal boundaries, I have received many representations from interested parties from this side of the house as well as from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), from the city council of Ottawa and other persons outside this house, and I believe the bill now before the house will give the Postmaster General the necessary authority to cure the situation by authorizing him to establish and alter the limits of postal areas within which delivery of a letter therein posted may be effected for 3 cents.
I cannot in advance bind myself to follow exclusively the municipal boundaries, as a strict adherence to this principle enunciated by the leader of the opposition would forbid me to deliver, at the reduced rate, in areas not within the municipal boundaries which now receive that privilege. I feel sure that the leader of the opposition would not wish
Post Office Act
me to so describe the Ottawa postal area so as to exclude, for instance, Rockcliffe, or surrounding municipalities which now receive the drop-letter rate.
Last year, on June 27, I made a statement in the house that persons against whom a prohibitory order had been made would be given an opportunity of making representations to a fact-finding board created for that purpose. Hon. members will notice that this promise has been fulfilled.
Another new feature of the bill is that totally unpaid letters, except of course, those covered by franking privileges, will not be forwarded. The intention of this section is to prevent persons from maliciously sending unpaid letters with the intent of causing annoyance and inconvenience to the addressee.
Franking privileges have been extended in two directions but do not cover special, more costly, services. Under the present law, letters could be forwarded to members of parliament during the ten days before the meeting of parliament free of Canada postage but letters written by members of parliament and sent by them were subject to postage. The new law provides that mail shall be transmitted free during that ten-day period when sent to or by a member of the House of Commons. A new section also grants the same privilege for the ten days following the session, which was not provided for under the old law.
Hon. members will also note that we are recommending the reduction from six to three weeks for the displaying of public notices inviting tenders for mail contracts. The six-week period was stipulated in 1867 and we think that three weeks is adequate under present-day circumstances and faster means of communication. This will speed up the awarding of contracts and establishment of services.
Under the same heading we suggest an increase to $1,000 of the amount under which the Postmaster General may enter into a contract without inviting tenders. The amount suggested is to bring the discretion of the Postmaster General in proportionate line with that which existed in 1867 when the figure of $200 was stipulated. There is no change in principle or practice from that which already exists and the Postmaster General is still under the obligation of not exceeding the amount ordinarily paid for services of a like nature under contracts made after inviting tenders. This proposal will also have the effect of speeding up the awarding of contracts and the establishment of services.

Post Office Act
The same proportional increase is suggested in the awarding of contracts with persons operating a railway, air, steamboat or bus service.
We are also asking the authority in case of emergencies to make whatever arrangements for conveying mail are necessary in the interests of the public service. The washout of the railway lines in British Columbia and the recent railway strike are examples of these possibilities.
I have given the house the highlights of the bill now before it. I shall, when in committee of the whole, give more information about each of these items.
I would suggest for your consideration that details, in regard to operating features, as distinct from items of principle, could more adequately be dealt with when the relevant item is under discussion in the post office estimates, but on the other hand I do not wish in any way to restrict discussion on any related postal problem and shall be glad to deal with any postal matter of importance which hon. members may wish to introduce.
However, I think everyone will agree that it will facilitate the work of the house if we limit as much as possible at this time any discussion on matters of operating detail.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the
suggestion of the minister that, so far as a discussion of operating details is concerned, in the ordinary course of events it will be better and more convenient to deal with them in committee. However, I do propose to discuss one feature of the bill now before us which goes far beyond any question of operating detail in the effect it will have upon the daily and weekly newspapers of this country.
The minister has reviewed generally the effect of the bill. I think that the amendments which simplify procedure, improve definitions, and provide for the extension of facilities will be welcomed generally by all hon. members. I welcome particularly the provision in the bill to which the minister has referred which makes it possible for him to remedy what I have described as an injustice where there is a different rate within a municipal boundary. I hope that the minister will exercise the power which the amendment proposed would confer upon him in such a way that wherever possible the municipal boundary will be the area within which there will be a uniform rate.
I do not propose to discuss this in any detail at the moment; I simply want to repeat what I have said on earlier occasions and to emphasize the fact that, where there is

a different rate within a municipal boundary, not only is there an injustice upon the person mailing letters or other postal matter, but there is a much greater injustice upon the person receiving this matter because in complete innocence many people direct heavy packages and circulars of all kinds to other people within the municipal boundary thinking that there is a uniform rate, and where such a differential exists penalty postage is imposed on many people simply by virtue of the fact that there is a general assumption that a uniform rate exists within the municipal boundary. I repeat that I welcome this amendment and hope that it will have the widest possible application when it is adopted.
The subject that I wish to discuss in some detail at this time is the increase in the postal rates on daily and weekly newspapers. This is not just a question of dollars and cents; this is not just a question of working out by process of arithmetic what it will cost to handle postal material of this kind. The distribution of news has been recognized for centuries as one of the vital parts of the processes of democracy. The minister pointed out that in recognition of that accepted principle rates have been so arranged for daily and weekly publications ever since confederation that the widest possible distribution of news and cultural information may be available to the people of our country.
We must examine in that light the extent to which the bill now before us proposes to increase postal rates, and consider the effect of the increases in postal rates on daily and weekly publications which are a part of the very living body of democracy in Canada. I think that the rates suggested, when they are carefully examined by hon. members, will be found to be too high as postal rates in the first place in any event, and in the second place they will be found to discriminate against newspapers because magazines and similar publications will pay a great deal less in relation to actual weight and cost of handling.
We have always attached great importance to freedom of the press. May I point out, however, that freedom of the press in itself is relatively ineffective unless there is freedom of distribution and freedom of accessibility which gives to freedom of the press an effective opportunity to leave its imprint upon the minds of the people who determine the course of democracy by the decision and impressions that are very largely formed from this source.
I intend to examine some of the changes that are proposed. I do not intend to discuss the bill section by section because that would not be appropriate on second reading. In order to consider what the effect will be of

adopting the rates proposed, it is however necessary to understand the practical effect of these changes in relation to different types of publications in this country. Canada is in an unusual position. I doubt if the situation in any other nation can be taken as an exact parallel to that which we find in Canada. We are the third largest nation in, the world. The only two nations larger in actual geographical area are Russia and China, one a nation with a population of some 200 million people and the other a nation with a population of close to 450 million.
In our country, only a little smaller than China, we have some 14 million people. Because of that very fact the facilities available for the distribution of news to this widely scattered population become a vitally important part of the whole machinery of democracy which we are doing so much to preserve at this time. While we have large urban communities and many old and well settled smaller communities scattered across this country from the eastern boundaries of Newfoundland to the western boundaries of Vancouver island, nevertheless there are great areas where people are able to have the news in written form only if the facilities are made available on other than a strictly arithmetical postal rate.
In the bill now before us some of the increases are very substantial indeed. In the old act the rates were not only lower but very much lower than those included in the present measure. I would point out that in addition to the burden that will be imposed upon readers through the rates now indicated, there are other burdens which bear directly upon readers of periodicals in Canada. There is a very general tendency to regard taxes of various kinds on corporations as taxes that do not bear directly on the individual Canadian. The sooner we all recognize that taxes imposed upon any business providing a service or a commodity for the public must in the end be paid by the public, the better it will be for our general understanding of the effect of any of these taxes. In Canada it must be remembered that there are already taxes which bear directly on newspapers, and daily newspapers particularly, which are not imposed in the same way upon other types of publications. For instance, there are sales taxes which apply to daily newspapers from which very large publications of much greater weight are exempt. The question may be asked what bearing this has on postal rates. It has a very considerable bearing, because it is part of the general increase in the cost of delivering to individual Canadian
Post Office Act
readers those publications which keep them informed on what is taking place in this country.
The new postal rates will have some very interesting results; and so that we may see exactly what the effect will be let me offer a few illustrations of what these changes will mean in the postal rates on newspapers of different sizes. The new act provides that newspapers and periodicals with a circulation of ten thousand or more copies per issue will pay four cents for each pound weight or fraction thereof. Let us see what will be the actual effect of this on the newspapers of this country. A newspaper of over ten thousand circulation averaging 45 pages for each publishing day now pays $3 a year. Under the new rates it will be called upon to pay $7.64 a year. A newspaper of ten thousand or more circulation with an average of 32 pages for every day of delivery now pays postage of $2.34 a year. The new rate will amount to $6.24. A newspaper of 28 pages in this group which now pays $1.80 postage will pay $4.90 under the new rates. A newspaper of 24 pages which now pays $1.56 in postage will pay $4.19. An 18-page newspaper which now pays $1.36 will pay $3.62. A 14-page newspaper in this group which now pays $1.14 will pay $3.05 if these provisions are adopted.
Then let us take newspapers with a circulation of less than ten thousand. A newspaper with an average of 12 pages and a circulation of less than ten thousand now paying 93 cents will pay $1.54. A newspaper with a 10-page average in this group, which now pays 87 cents, in future will pay $1.31.
Certain changes have been made in regard to newspapers having a limited advertising content. Certain surcharges were imposed upon publications which carried more than 50 per cent of advertising, and that surcharge is done away with. However, there are certain disadvantages as well as advantages in this connection. The fact is that this surcharge did offer encouragement to maintain a certain percentage of news space. The removal of that surcharge also removes that incentive; and regarding this as part of the processes of democracy that should not be considered only as an advantage.
Now I come to the question of the percentage of increase. From the figures I have quoted it will be seen that in many instances the increases are substantially more than 100 per cent. It is very significant that, although such measures have not been adopted, there is a proposal for an increase

Post Office Act
of 60 per cent in the United States. But they are not suggesting that this increase should take place all at once; they are proposing that it be spread over a three-year period, if in fact they adopt the proposal at all. So in a country much more sparsely populated, where the reasons for giving special consideration to those postal services which carry newspapers to the distant parts of the land are much greater than in the United States, it will be seen that we are proposing greater increases than they are even considering over there.
The minister spoke of these special rates as something in the nature of a subsidy. I suggest they have never been regarded as a subsidy, but that they have been regarded and should be regarded simply as part of the whole machinery of democracy, to use the term I have used already. We do not hesitate to spend money on various activities related to the effective working of our democratic system. The various steps carried out under the election act, which in many cases call for the expenditure of substantial amounts of money, would be only partially effective unless the means were provided well in advance of the date of an election for the people to obtain all the essential information they wish to have as to the events taking place from day to day in the local, provincial, national and international fields. I believe the postal rates were mainly regarded as a means by which the rural population of Canada could be supplied with newspapers and periodicals which would give them the essential information they should have. I believe that is the principle which has been accepted in connection with postal rates on matter of this nature.
May I also point out that the newspapers themselves have co-operated in making information available in this way. I believe the record will clearly show that the annual rates at which newspapers are offered to the public give lower returns to the newspapers than any other type of delivery. Just to give one example, an urban daily in any one of the larger cities which sells for five cents a copy, and which in that way would cost $15.25 per year, is generally sold at $10 per year when delivered by post. That, of course, applies to the larger newspapers. In the case of smaller newspapers, there is a lower annual rate charged, although in most cases the street sale is now the same. Thus, it is apparent that the newspapers have been playing their part in making the news available to the widest possible number of readers throughout the whole community.

It is for that reason I believe the minister would be well advised to defer the second reading of this bill, and to review that part of the measure which he is now placing before the house, with the idea that postal rates which will make it easy to continue the widest distribution of daily and weekly newspapers to people in remote parts of this country will be supported by members of this house as part of Canadian democracy itself. I put forward that suggestion in all earnestness. The minister is well aware that there could be little possibility of newspapers absorbing these increased postal rates. It would1 be contrary to the general business practices in any business in this country to expect that very substantial increases of this kind will be carried by the newspapers, although I should think it likely that they will bear some part of the increase.
The bill, as it is before us, would have the effect of discriminating against newspapers at a time when newspapers are more important to the people of this country than they have ever been. No one recognizes more than I do the value of radio, from both the cultural and the news distributing point of view. I certainly welcome the facilities afforded by the radio, as do all hon. members of this house. I am convinced, however, that for the purpose of understanding the issues of the day nothing will ever entirely take the place of the printed word. People's memories may be very good, but it would be very difficult to remember everything that is heard, even in the very best radio programs. I repeat, therefore, that at a time when democracy is threatened, as it has not been threatened for centuries, we should not do anything which will make it more difficult to have the widest possible distribution of the news, or which will be inclined in any way to limit the circulation of those newspapers which have served Canada so well, to the most remote parts of this country from the east to the west, and from the southern boundaries of Canada to its most northerly part.
Some very strong statements have been made about these proposed changes, which indicate the extent of the objection which is being taken- to these proposals. One thing that is emphasized over and over in the statements which have been made already is that it will be the people in the rural districts who will suffer most from a change of this character. It has always been regarded as of the utmost importance that those in the most distant and far-flung points should have these facilities available to them. As was stated in one discussion on this

subject, "This is a direct tax on the intellectual food which is vital to millions of Canadians." I am not suggesting for one moment that at this time the members of this house can disregard the cost of any service that we are called upon to provide through the legislation we adopt. I suggest further that there are ways in which money could be raised from other sources to take care of a substantial part of this deficit to which the minister has referred.
I believe it would be to the benefit of Canadians if comic publications, sex magazines, and crime comics which are still circulated in large quantities were taxed heavily to provide some of the money needed to assist in the distribution to the people of this country of real news about the vital things that are directing the course of affairs in Canada. The strange part about it is that, instead of being taxed, these useless and in some cases dangerous publications actually pay less than those publications which are an essential part of democracy itself. I am not suggesting at all that we should try to decide what the people of this country can read, so long as it is not something that comes within clearly defined criminal or other prohibitions. But I do suggest that the postal service rates and other taxes should be imposed in inverse ratio to the usefulness of the publication. The publications which provide news and cultural information should pay the lowest rates.


Jean Lesage: Like the Conservative papers.


An hon. Member:: That stopped him.


George Alexander Drew: I am rather interested in that interjection; in fact, I am interested in the two interjections. I hope that Hansard will have recorded those words, because if Hansard has recorded those words it will indicate the way that some of the members on the other side of the house regard this vitally important question.


Jean Lesage: My interjection was made to show you how impossible it is to decide what kind of paper is more useful than other kinds; that is all.


George Alexander Drew: I hope that Hansard will record that one of the parliamentary assistants was apparently treating with some measure of levity and lack of seriousness an argument which is in keeping with the view that I am ' satisfied expresses the general thought of our people right across Canada at this time. I do not suggest that the interjections which were made reflect the attitude towards this subject of the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret), and I trust that those interjections would be
Post Office Act
regarded by him as being quite as objectionable as they must be regarded by other members who recognize that distribution of the press is just as important as freedom of the press.


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, may I say that I believe that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is imputing motives to me. I know that it is a serious question, and the only reason for my interjection is that I was wondering who was going to decide which paper is more useful than the other ones; that is all. This is a serious matter and I do not believe that the leader of the opposition has any right to impute any motives of levity, as he has, because I myself consider that this is an important matter.


Mr. Rowe:: It did not sound like it.


George Alexander Drew: I am glad that it has been possible at least to convince the hon. member of the importance of this subject during this discussion, and that encourages me to hope that the argument may carry some weight with other hon. members as well.


Jean Lesage: I had already read all your arguments in the papers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think it
would be better to get back to the principle of the bill.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps it is worth commenting on this point. If the hon. member has read all my articles that have appeared, he must of course be referring to articles on other subjects because I have not previously made any statement in regard to this subject, either in articles or otherwise.


Jean Lesage: Yes, but the press has something else to print than your statements. The newspapermen have their own ideas.


George Alexander Drew: I am proceeding on the assumption that other members regard this subject more seriously than does the parliamentary assistant who is interrupting at this time.


Jean Lesage: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I feel I must rise again on a question of privilege. I do not believe it is fair to impute any motives, and I believe that the leader of the opposition should withdraw what he said just now.


An hon. Member:: Explain your interruption.


George Alexander Drew: I am quite sure that Hansard will accurately record what the hon. member has said, and I hope that it will. I also hope that it will carry quite clearly the extent to which my argument at least has brought him some distance along the path that I am suggesting.

Post Office Act
I have sought to put forward for the consideration of this house certain reasons why I think that it would be desirable if the minister would withhold this bill from second reading, something which could be done by motion which would, I am sure, be carried by this house if he makes it. If that were done, then before the bill passes to the committee there will have been an opportunity to re-examine those sections which provide these increases in postal rates on the scale that I have mentioned. The minister himself would then not be confronted with the necessity for any hastily-drafted amendments if the arguments which were made by the members in committee convinced him that some changes should be made. If the arguments that I have put forward have merit, I believe that it would assist the minister and the members of this house to have these sections re-examined carefully, without undue haste, so that when the bill has its second reading and goes to committee the minister may have had an opportunity to draft alternative provisions which I think would be consistent with the opinion and with the wishes of many of the hon. members of this house.
At this stage I have sought to avoid some of the exceedingly strong terms which have been employed in editorials and in other public comments on this part of the act. I have refrained from employing some of the strong adjectives that have been employed in responsible newspapers and by responsible men to describe what they think is a serious infringement of democratic rights in this country. I have sought to put forward what I believe would be the wish of the people of Canada, because it will be the people of Canada who will pay the substantial part of any increases of this kind, and it will be they who will suffer if the processes of democracy are weakened in any way at this time.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is entitled "An act respecting the Canada post office". From what the minister said in his introductory remarks on the motion for second reading of this bill, I assume that it will be in order to discuss some matters pertaining to the post office which are omitted from the bill, as well as those matters which are specifically mentioned. I refer particularly to what the minister termed the operative details of the post office services. While I agree with the Postmaster General that in some respects it would be more convenient to postpone debate on those operative details until the minister's estimates are before the house than it would be to discuss them under this bill, I suggest that there are matters of grave concern to

the Canadian public which, in my opinion, cannot afford to wait until the minister's estimates are before the house.
In a previous speech on this subject in the house I and other hon. members suggested that the time was ripe when either a commission or a special committee of the house should be appointed to investigate the whole question of the post office administration. Under the minister's estimates there will be no opportunity to debate that question in full, and I submit that it is a question that we may well consider while this bill is before us. The leader of the opposition has suggested that second reading of the bill should be deferred. He gave his reasons for asking for that deferment. I would suggest that second reading be deferred in order to consider not only the subject raised by the leader of the apposition but the question of the appointment of a commission or a special committee of the house to investigate the post office administration across this country.
My two chief reasons for suggesting that are that I am constantly, as I am sure all other hon. members are, receiving complaints from citizens that at the present time the post office is not rendering the kind of service for which it has gained a reputation during past years, and the kind of service which the Canadian people expect of the post office. I hear constantly of citizens in areas where there is supposed to be a daily mail delivery having to go for two or three days in succession without delivery of mail; of citizens who are continually obliged to receive their mail delivery after six o'clock at night. I know that I am referring to the Toronto area, and that conditions prevail there which may not prevail in other metropolitan areas. But a very serious situation has developed, and nothing that the Postmaster General or his officials have done within the past month or six weeks in an effort to remedy the situation appears to be very effective.
Only yesterday I met numbers of post office delivery men who still maintain that they are required to work twelve hours a day to cover their routes. That is a condition which, since it still prevails, and since the Post Office Department has already had at least two months or more since the condition was called to their attention to remedy it, and since effective remedies are not being applied, calls for some investigation. I do not think that the government, which in fact should set an example to other employers in this country, should be requiring employees, who by their terms of contract or work are required only to work, or supposed to work, eight hours a day, to work ten and twelve

hours a day without any special remuneration for these extra hours. I am sure we would not condone that practice if engaged in by private employers.
This house would frown upon any employer who engaged men to work for eight hours a day, and then required them to work for ten and twelve hours a day without any remuneration whatever for the extra two, three and four hours a day that they may be called upon to work. These two considerations, the fact that the public in the Toronto area is not now getting the high type of service that is expected of the post office, and that the post office presumes to be giving, and the fact that the delivery men have to work long hours, prompt me to ask that second reading be deferred.
I read in the minister's report that it is the continued effort on the part of the department to cut costs without impairment of service to the public. In the matter of the one delivery a day recently introduced the government has attempted to cut costs. It has also impaired its service to the public by so doing.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Apple-whaite for the second reading of Bill No. 116, respecting British Columbia Telephone Company, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Gillis.
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about this bill which is most important to the people of my constituency. The constituency of Kootenay West, because of its geography, topography and other local circumstances which necessitate some people living in isolated places, is to a great extent dependent upon telephone service. A good and efficient telephone service is most necessary for the district which I have the honour to represent.
Before passing on to my other remarks may I say that we from British Columbia appreciate the interest that some eastern members have taken in this bill. I refer particularly to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) who showed sufficient interest in this bill and the welfare of the people of British Columbia to speak
British Columbia Telephone Company when the bill was last before the house. I want to congratulate the sponsor of the bill upon the presentation-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member for a moment? Several days have elapsed since this bill was before the house. I recall that the last time we considered the bill the question of whether the amendment was in order was before us. It was decided that the amendment was in order and my recollection is that it was decided also that discussion should be strictly relevant to the amendment and not to the motion for second reading. If my recollection is correct, may I suggest to hon. members that they discuss only the amendment at this time. The amendment reads:
That Bill No. 116 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
I think the discussion should be relevant to the question of whether or not the subject matter of this bill should be referred to the committee.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is exactly what I was going to do. I was going to give reasons why I believed this bill should be referred to the committee. Before doing that I want to express my appreciation of the very able way in which the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite), who has no direct interest in this bill because the company does not operate in his constituency, sponsored the bill and presented' the relevant information to the house. I think it only fair to say that, because there have been some occasions on which we have had slipshod presentations of important bills.
We recognize that throughout recent years the British Columbia Telephone Company have carried on extensive expansions in British Columbia and we give them credit for that. But we feel at the same time that we should take advantage of this opportunity to present the requirements of our constituents. Before I give the reasons why I think this amendment should pass may I say that I understand that throughout British Columbia the company has most excellent relations with its employees. I have found that to be generally the case throughout my district. I have found also that in the interior the public relations officials of the company have been most satisfactory. Before proceeding I want first to pay a tribute to the employees of the company in my constituency. Under the most trying conditions during the winter months they have undertaken the most hazardous tasks at times to maintain telephone service to many of our isolated communities.
3516	HOUSE OF
British Columbia Telephone Company
It is not my .intention to repeat the arguments so well advanced, toy the hon,. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), but I do want to say that one major reason we consider that this bill should be referred to the committee is that we believe the company is asking for too great an increase in capital at one time. If there was a reduction in the amount of capital asked for it is quite probable that in four or five years they would have to come before this house again and in that way we would -have the opportunity to examine what they had been doing during that period.
Another reason why we think the subject matter of the bill should be referred to the committee is, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra mentioned, the very peculiar administrative situation that exists with respect to this company. While the board of transport commissioners has control over tolls, tariffs, and rates, no one has control over services. I understand the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra mentioned the fact that the public utilities commission of British Columbia have admitted that they had no power over the services and the development of services of this company.
We believe that there should be an amendment to the act so that some body would have control over services and the development of services according to the requirements of the communities concerned, the same as there is control over power and other utilities. We contend that that would be a very simple matter. Under the health of animals act, the fruit and vegetables act and the forestry act certain provincial officials are empowered to represent the federal government in the administration of certain regulations. We suggest that the act could be amended so that the public utilities commission of British Columbia would represent the board of transport commissioners and be empowered to deal with services and to see that they were properly carried out.
I am going to give other reasons why I think the subject matter of this bill should receive the consideration of the committee according to the amendment. I want to bring to the attention of the house certain complaints that have been brought to my attention with regard to the service given in Kootenay West by the British Columbia Telephone Company. I am going to start with Trail, the silver city of British Columbia, where one of the great metallurgical smelters in the British commonwealth is in operation.
[Mr. Herridge.l


Mr. Byrne:: They get their silver ore from Kootenay East.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I know that, but the manufacturing is done at Trail. That relatively small city makes a great contribution to the industrial welfare and defence production of Canada, yet it is without a modern dial telephone system. For some time they have been asking for an improvement in their telephone services. To illustrate the position briefly, I am going to read an editorial from the Trail Times of March 3, 1951, which reflects public opinion in this matter in that city in my constituency. The heading of the editorial is "Outmoded Telephones". It reads:
The Bell Telephone Company has released some interesting statistics on telephones and one of the most interesting figures, so far as this district is concerned, is that more than 65 per cent of all the world's telephones are dial operated.
The British Columbia Telephone Company, which operates most of the telephone lines in the province, including those in the West Kootenay, makes no distinction in its published reports between dial and other type of instruments but it says there are 4.328 telephones in the Trail area and approximately 230,000 in all of B.C.
Over-all figures on telephone operations show that Canada has an average of one telephone for every five persons. Trail conforms to this average fairly closely. The question of automatic telephones is a far different matter. Trail has no dial telephones. At a time when more than 65 per cent of all telephones in the world have reached the automatic stage it is a sad commentary on a local situation when telephone subscribers here still are plagued with the inconveniences of the "Number, Pulease" system . . . This should not stop Trail from seeking an end to the present central system. After all, so long as there are no protests, the B.C. Telephone Company may imagine Trailites are quite happy with their old-fashioned phones.
I am making a protest in that connection on behalf of the residents of the city of Trail. I want to deal with the golden city of British Columbia, the city of Rossland, which has produced so much gold throughout the years. I wish to read a letter addressed to me by the secretary of the Rossland board of trade, a very responsible organization that considers all things necessary for the advancement of that community. The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Herridge:
Thank you for your letter of February 10 re the British Columbia Telephone Company proposed amending bill.
Of course I had written to And out if they had any complaints.
Also please accept my apology for the delay in replying to same. However, as your letter arrived after our February meeting it was rather hard to get action on it until now. However at last night's meeting the matter was brought up and I can give you the suggestions as handed to me. First of all, I might say that the Rossland board has been dealing with B.C. Telephone company officials during the last year complaining about the service here in

Rossland, and at that time we were given to understand that if this proposed bill went through for authorized capital, the Rossland service would be on the program for an improved system. Naturally then we are in favour of the proposed bill. The suggestions were as follows:
(1)	Installation of a new up-to-date system in Rossland as we have been given to understand that the present party line system is carrying its maximum load and cannot be extended.
(2)	That if improvements are contemplated, consideration be given to the installation of a modern dial phone system.
On behalf of the board I should like to thank you once again for your letter and assure you that you are dealing with a matter which is being followed very closely by this board.
That is the opinion of another considerable section of my constituency. I come to the city of Nelson, the commercial centre of the constituency. There again I have received letters from organizations and individuals complaining of exactly the same conditions complained of by the people of Trail and Rossland. Then I go from there to the capital of the Arrow lakes which the hon. member for Vancouver South knows quite well, the village of Nakusp. It is a small place with a population of some 750 which last year produced 600 carloads of lumber, nearly 550 carloads of cedar poles, and large amounts of farm produce. What do they have to say about it? They are very interested in this telephone bill and in securing improvements in the district surrounding. This is what they ask for, and they have been asking for these things for some time. That is one reason, Mr. Speaker, why we believe the amount of capital being asked for is too large. We believe these companies should have to come to the house fairly frequently for their increases in capital so that members of the house will have an opportunity to give expression to the complaints of their constituents. This letter is from the secretary of the Nakusp board of trade, and reads:
In reply to your letter re the B.C. Telephone Company which came to hand last week, would advise you that at our regular meeting held on Tuesday 20th, I was asked to give you the following points for consideration in the matter:
1.	Twenty-four hour service.
We have not got twenty-four hour service. The operator has to be wakened at night if someone is sick and we wish to telephone Nelson, Trail or some other outside point. The letter continues:
2.	Individual lines in town, or at least for business premises.
3.	Fewer phones on existing party lines.
These are matters which we have been tackling for some time but we just get promises and no action. Hoping something can be done in this direction in the near future,
Yours truly,
Thos. Mitchell
British Columbia Telephone Company
There is another reason why we wish to see the money that will be raised as a result of this bill spent to a somewhat greater extent in the interior of British Columbia. I come now to Slocan which is producing a large amount of galena, lead, zinc, silver and metals of that type. I have heard from their board of trade, and they have been trying for years to get some improvements in that mountainous area where telephone service is very necessary, particularly when the roads between Sandon and New Denver, and other points, are blocked by slides in winter and when the only communication is by telephone. This is what I am advised by the secretary of the Slocan district board of trade with its headquarters in New Denver, a very lovely village, the Switzerland of North America. The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Herridge:
Re: B.C. Telephone Company
Thank you for your letter of February 10, and I trust that this reply is not too late to reach you before the proposed amending bill comes up for discussing in the house. We have been in correspondence recently with the B.C. Telephone Company requesting a regular twenty-four hour service in the New Denver exchange, but as yet have received no satisfactory reply. There is also a pressing need for more lines to Silverton, the present thirty-six phones in that thriving base metal mining community being served by only six multi-party lines. The number of telephones in Slocan city should also be increased, but we are not prepared at this time to recommend what form the improvement to service in that centre should take.
This district has received excellent service and co-operation from the company's district agent at New Denver, in spite of the fact that her work has been made most difficult due to the overcrowding of lines, shortage of adequate help due to the fact that the present emergency service set-up precludes a regular shift schedule being followed, etc. As a matter of fact, this lady is now under medical care at the coast following a nervous breakdown. We certainly hope that something can be done to bring the telephone service here into line with present-day business demands, as we feel that this is one part of the province where the increase in demand for telephones approximates the increase in capitalization being requested by the telephone company.
That letter is signed by Mr. N. F. Brookes, secretary of the Slocan district board of trade. Then I come to a somewhat unusual situation with respect to the Salmo and district valley where we have several large gold producers and several other mines including the Emerald mine, which will shortly be producing tungsten for the defence effort, and a large mine which is now being developed by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, the Hudson Bay mine. For some years they have been trying to get improvements in service in that small community where there is an immense production of wealth, and so far they have not received the attention from the company that they

British Columbia Telephone Company deserve. In that connection I want to read a letter from their secretary. It is as follows:
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 10-
You will note that I wrote them all on the same day.
-concerning the above, for which we thank you. Please be advised that this board is not at all satisfied with the telephone service now being provided in the Salmo area. At present the B.C. Telephone Company provides line service to the exchange in the Salmo post office and to the F. R. Rotter Lumber Company, but does not operate a service in the area itself. This service is managed on an individual proprietor basis by Mr. L. H. Lund, the present postmaster. This board has set up a special committee to go into the whole problem of improving the telephone service in the area. On numerous occasions in the past, the officials of the B.C. Telephone Company at Nelson have been contacted with a view to interesting them in providing a service for this area. The present holder of the phone franchise, Mr. Lund, has invited the company to make him an offer for his exchange, lines and equipment. This the company has refused to do, explaining that the equipment is valueless to them and that therefore they cannot reasonably pay him anything for it.
This board takes the position that, as a public utility, the B.C. Telephone Company has an obligation to provide an improved phone service in this area, regardless of whether or not they can expect a profit from operations in the region. Their profits from operations in larger centres would assuredly take care of any operating deficit in this area.
Anything you could do to convince the company that they should make an effort to provide a sorely needed improved service in this area, would be greatly appreciated. It seems that, in order to set up such an improved service, the company would have to buy out the service rendered by Mr. L. H. Lund, and then set up either an exchange or a dial system, such as is being installed in Castlegar and Fruitvale. We feel that the expansion going on in this area justifies consideration of such a step by the company in any event.
We would appreciate any information you can give us on the above problem.
Yours very truly,
(sgd.) F. T. Middleton,
Secretary
This community still suffers from a poor telephone service.
I am not going to read any more letters, because others will want to say a few words on this bill. These illustrations, I think, indicate the need for some authority within the province to exercise control over the service rendered by this company to the people of British Columbia, particularly in the rural areas. The same thing applies to Kaslo, a small incorporated city in my district, from which I have had communications along exactly the same lines. They are not satisfied with their telephone service. Only recently in that city there have been great developments in connection with the utilization of carbon dioxide for dry ice. Already a large sum has been spent, and they expect within two or three years to have a million dollar

plant in that little city. The same thing applies at Castlegar, at the end of the Arrow lakes, and at Robson and other Arrow lake points. The same thing applies at Fruitvale, a growing community which is trying hard to get improved telephone service. There is need for improvement and expansion all through the district, and the people I represent have been doing their best to get that improvement and expansion. This is the only opportunity I have to bring their needs to the attention of the house.
Before concluding I should like to deal with another peculiar situation; that is the matter of telephone service in the Lardeau valley. At one time the Canadian Pacific Railway operated a railway line between Lardeau and Gerrard, a distance of about 32 miles. In 1941 they abandoned that line, turning the roadbed over to the provincial government for a highway, and also turning the telegraph wires over to the provincial government for the use of the forest service. Since then the whole line has deteriorated and been allowed to fall into disrepair. Here we have an area with 500 million feet of virgin standing timber within an area of a few square miles, as well as large mineral deposits and 16,000 acres of the best land in British Columbia awaiting settlement. Various residents of that area, as well as the board of trade, wrote to ask if I would bring the matter to the attention of the federal government to see if they would do something to assist them in maintaining this telephone service. The minister informed me the matter would be investigated. It has been investigated, and I am advised that the cost would be too great to be considered at the present time but that the Department of Transport will give technical advice to the settlers of the area if they wish to maintain the line at their own expense.
My point is that this service should be undertaken by the British Columbia Telephone Company. Why should they be allowed to have the profits from the rich districts like Vancouver, New Westminster, Victoria, Burnaby and so on, the cream of the telephone crop, and refuse to give service to other areas? There again if we had some authority in British Columbia to deal with these matters these companies that have monopolies could be required to give service to the outlying districts, to serve the nonprofit areas with the profit areas. Tfyat is what we understood would be done when these people obtained their franchise.
I do not wish to speak at greater length, except to repeat that we take exception to this bill on two principal grounds. The first is that this company is asking for an increase in capital from $25 million to $75 million.

We believe that should De reduced to at least $50 million, so that in a few years the company would have to come back to this house and plead their cause again, when hon. members would have an opportunity to present the complaints and needs of their constituents. Then we believe there should be some amendment of this bill to provide for the direction of this telephone service by some authority within the province, such as the public utilities commission which directs the services supplied by power companies and other utilities in British Columbia.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: If this amendment is passed at this stage of the session, whatever may be the wording, inevitably it will mean killing this bill. This legislation has been on the order paper since March 1, the day it finally passed the other house. With the order paper crowded as it is with private bills, if this legislation is not put through this house now so it can go to committee in the ordinary way, it cannot be satisfactorily handled this session. Therefore I would urge hon. members to defeat the amendment, give the bill second reading and refer it to the committee to which the hon. member wishes it sent. It will go there anyway under standing order 104, and before that committee I undertake to have all the senior officers of the company present for questioning. I would remind hon. members that details can be discussed in that committee, and if the house so desires the bill can be further debated on third reading.


Mr. G. A. Cruickshank (Fraser Valley):: I
should like to say a word on the amendment. I would like to see this bill go to committee, and I hope the sponsor does not prevent that being done. The part of the province from which I come wants to see this company get an increase in its capital, but we are definitely opposed to the increase that is asked; and I believe members from other parts of the province have the same feeling. If the sponsor and the company see fit to introduce an amendment themselves, as was done in the case of another company sponsored by the hon. member for Vancouver South, I am sure there would be no difficulty in getting the bill through.
I hope this bill will be referred to the committee tonight, but I want to make my position very clear. It is not going through the house without an amendment being moved, because it is inconceivable to me that this company should need the increase of $50 million now, for which it has asked. Then we know rumours have been heard around this building that because of opposition to this bill four hundred men in British Columbia have lost employment. I would like the 80709-224
British Columbia Telephone Company sponsor or anyone else to verify that statement. To say that because a company with a capitalization of $25 million has not been able to get that capital increased it has been forced to lay off four hundred men is utterly ridiculous, and I think any hon. member who has circulated that story around this house-


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I regret very much
delaying the debate at this stage, but on a question of privilege the hon. member has referred to the sponsor and then to any other member circulating this rumour. I definitely deny that I or anyone connected with me circulated any such'rumour.


George Alexander Cruickshank: If the hon. member will check Hansard tomorrow he will find I did not say the sponsor circulated the rumour. I said the sponsor could deny the story. I said these rumours had been circulated, and I am glad the sponsor says they are not true, which I presume he is saying. Of course the company has not laid off four hundred men as a result of the very limited discussion that has taken place here, and I am glad to hear the sponsor make that statement; that is exactly what I wanted him to say. I intend to have a good deal to say on this bill in committee of the whole, since I am not a member of the standing committee. I will personally see to it that an amendment is moved, if it is not moved by someone else, reducing the amount of the increase asked for. If the company will agree to that amendment then to the best of my ability I will see that the bill goes through, but certainly not for the full amount. The main reason, Mr. Speaker, that I am speaking again tonight is that I resent these unfounded arguments. I am glad to hear that the sponsor of the bill agrees with me that they are entirely unfounded. The company must have money, and advertises that it must have money to expand its services to meet the increasing demands. I have before me an advertisement from the Vancouver Sun which is headed "Marriage still claims large number of telephone operators. Many more needed to take their places." That proves, Mr. Speaker, that no one is better qualified to refer to the telephone company of the province of British Columbia than the member for Fraser Valley. I described the beauty of the operators, and the company pays money to advertise that they are leaving every day to get married. I shall do my utmost, sir, to see that this bill goes through this house on third reading, providing the request for capitalization is reduced to a moderate amount.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, at this stage I only wish to speak for about two minutes to say that while, as I believe
3520	HOUSE OF
British Columbia Telephone Company every member who has spoken tonight has said, I am not opposed to this bill receiving second reading, nevertheless I have not had answers to my objections to certain parts of the bill which I expressed on an earlier occasion before the amendment was moved by the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). My objection has to do mainly with certain provisions regarding preference shareholders. The point I made is that I think their rights are likely to be unduly prejudiced if the amendment passes in its present form. I do not wish to do more than say that my objection has not been answered either by the sponsor of the bill or by the solicitor for the company, with whom I have had correspondence. I intend to move an amendment in committee, but I do not intend to hold up the bill at this stage, except to say that my objection still stands and has not been answered.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: believe, Mr. Speaker, that on one particular point I speak for all the members from British Columbia, and particularly those from greater Vancouver, when I say that we want the bill to receive second reading. We believe that the company needs a certain amount of new capital for the expansion of its services. But there are a great many of us who are opposed to granting the amount of capital the company is requesting in this bill. We would like to see the bill passed in an amended form with the amount of capital reduced. I agree with the member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) that if the amendment carried it would have the result of killing the bill. However, it would not prevent the committee from recommending that the bill be again introduced with the amount of capital reduced.
The members from British Columbia cannot, without aid from members from other parts of Canada, get the modifications in the bill that they would like. If I understand it correctly, the purpose of moving this amendment was that, if passed, it would serve as an indication to the company of the temper of this house in regard to the bill. The purpose was not to kill the bill. If this amendment fails and second reading is given to the bill, it will automatically go to the proper committee where, if there is sufficient support from other members, the bill can be amended. I assure you that this company has a monopoly on telephone services in British Columbia which it exercises with almost complete disregard of the welfare of the people and operates wholly in the interests of the shareholders, not only of the British Columbia Telephone Company but of all the other companies connected with it. I
(Mr. Fulton.]

should like to see this bill passed and referred to a committee, so that we could have representatives from the city of Vancouver where the bulk of the people served by this company reside. It is a very important issue for the people of the city from which I come.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At the present time the debate is on the amendment moved by the member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis). Accordingly he cannot speak again.


Clarence Gillis: I did not intend to speak at all, I just wanted to make a reference to the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: But the hon. member moved the amendment, and cannot make a reference to it again without the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that the hon. member has not the unanimous consent of the house, so he cannot speak again. Is the house ready for the question on the amendment? Those in favour of the amendment will say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose the amendment can be lost on division, and if so I declare it lost on division.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, May 4, consideration in committee of Bill No. 176, to incorporate the Ukrainian Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Eastern Canada-Mr. Ross (Hamilton East)-Mr. Dion in the chair.
Sections 1 to 14 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Mr. David A. Croll (for Mr. Winkler) moved: that Bills Nos. 200 to 266 inclusive be read the second time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, should not these bills be called for second reading one at a time?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


David Arnold Croll: No. Things have changed since you left. We take them in bunches again.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been the practice of the house to read the bills together with one motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure that the standing orders are quite clear that a bill is a bill and is supposed1 to be read separately. Just because there is a whole lot of them that are very much the same does not do away with the fact that they are individual bills. I think that if the house is going to do this job it should take it seriously and do it in a proper way. Even if there is no discussion on many of these bills I feel that they should be called one at a time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. On previous occasions the bills had been read together with the unanimous consent of the house. If there is not unanimous consent, I shall call the bills individually. Will it meet with the pleasure of the house if I call the bills slowly by number?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Ellen Agnes Evans Boisvert.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 201, for the relief of Muriel Bruce Higgins Greenleaf.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 202, for the relief of Real Levesque. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Mary Ruth Langlois Michael.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of Betty Roseman Feigelman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Rachel Aizer Forman.-Mr. Winkler.

David Arnold Croll: the second reading of Bill No. 206, for the relief of Romeo Paradis.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the motion for the second reading of Bill No. 206 is carried, I should like to express the hope that when this bill goes to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills this case will be given thorough consideration rather than just consideration in bulk. I do not know whether or not the case is contested, but I know that it is one that occupied considerable time of the committee of the other place. The volume of evidence with respect to this case is a 80709

224J
Private Bills-Divorce fairly thick one. There is one son fourteen years of age. I do not wish to discuss other details at this point. I merely rise to express the hope that even if this case is not contested, the committee will consider it carefully.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
SENATE BILLS >
Bill No. 207, for the relief of Joseph Arthur Neveu.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Kathleen Harrington Courcy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 209, for the relief of Anna Goral-czyk Jurewicz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 210, for the relief of Colette Clement Carrieres.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 211, for the relief of Bertha Barbara Bishop Wheatley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 212, for the relief of Carl Marius Nielsen,-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 213, for the relief of Doris Eileen Rowe Brenan Stavert.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 214, for the relief of Gertrude Job Fraser.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 215, for the relief of Ruth Fishman Wynn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Beatrice Vida Harriett Hunnisett Glenday.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Salfeda Busko Williams.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Margaret Isobel Barnett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Thelma Rosenberg Schwarz Bard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Rollande Cecile Larocque Duquette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Etta Smolkin Shapiro.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Jeanne Wigdor Millman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Capitola Jodoin Ranger.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Gaston Deguire.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Jean Troster Fink.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Rae Goldstein White.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Phyllis Eileen Paris Gibson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	228,	for	the	relief	of	Lorraine
Colville Watson Anderson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	229,	for	the	relief	of	Edward
Stanley Darby.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	230,	for	the	relief	of	Bernard
Kenneth McCormack.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	231,	for	the	relief	of	Mansell
Reginald Jacques.-Mr. Winkler.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce

David Arnold Croll: the second reading of Bill No. 232, for the relief of John Atherton Critchley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to suggest to the
sponsor of these bills-and I believe the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) is the acting sponsor-that he allow tb;s bill to stand and that we go on and deal with the others that are on the order paper. This is a case that is contested. I have certain information about it. but I am prepared to speak to this bill on another occasion, if the hon. member for Spadina would agree to my request that this bill stand.


David Arnold Croll: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Bill 232 stands.


Mr. Cleaver:: All the rest in bulk.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. Those days are gone for ever.	.


Hughes Cleaver: Fine nuisance value.



JULIA STARR MELNICK

David Arnold Croll: the second reading of Bill No. 233, for the relief of Julia Starr M-elnick.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before Bill 233 passes, I think I should take note of the remark just made by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver) to the effect that what I am asking for is in the nature of creating a nuisance. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is the right and the duty of parliament to deal in a proper manner with bills that come before it. I do not think that what the house is doing tonight is really satisfactory.


An hon. Member:: Oh, give it a rest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Any members who want to make interjections are free to make them and to get them on the record, but I suggest that parliament should realize what it is doing in passing these divorce bills just as fast as Your Honour can read the numbers. That is no reflection on what Your Honour is doing; you are doing what the house has asked you to do. But I submit that any suggestion that a nuisance is being created by asking that at least a few seconds' consideration be given to each of these cases is entirely out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will endeavour not to read the numbers of the bills quickly, but will hesitate long enough between the bills so that any member who objects to any one will have an opportunity of expressing his objection.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 234, for the relief of William Alfred Jameson.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 235, for the relief of Jean Camille Antoine Coutu.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 236, for the relief of Mary Jenner Watkins.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 237, for the relief of Geraldine Mae Cuffe Kennedy.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 238, for the relief of Lucille Ida Fenlon Ashmore.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 239, for the relief of Ela Raizman. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Julia Saad Shagory.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 241, for the relief of Lottie Aileen Wright Robinson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 242, for the relief of Arthur David Prosser.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 243, for the relief of Edmund Vaughan Stewart.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Marie Madeleine Clemence McKenzie Caron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 245, for the relief of Meinerth Aage Arsvold Wick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 246, for the relief of Myrtle Louise Vassell Evans.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 247, for the relief of Margo Clare McManus McKeown.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 248, for the relief of Eli Wilson Jewer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	249,	for	the	relief	of Beulah
Nellie Elliott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bil1	No.	250,	for	the relief	of Terez
Baranyai Jekkel, otherwise known as Therese Baranyai Jekkel.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	251,	for	the	relief	of Andrew
Krilyk.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	252,	for	the	relief	of Harold
Dimond Parsons.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 253, for the relief of Peter Seniw. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	254,	for	the	relief	of Dorothy
Agnes Bell Bissonnette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 255. for the relief of Gertrude Banner Jones.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 256, for the relief of Selma Schenker Wyler.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	257,	for	the	relief	of Frances
Helen Shulman Cohen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 258, for the relief of Agnes Mary Binnie Bullock.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 259, for the relief of Marie Rose Berthe Bernard Greco.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Paul Emile Le Blanc.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 261, for the relief of Taras Pieluch.-Mr. Winkler.

David Arnold Croll: the second reading of Bill No. 262, for the relief of Joyce Margaret Wright Roxburgh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire why it is that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Winkler) sponsors most of these bills but that occasionally the sponsor is the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Weir)?


David Arnold Croll: It is quite possible that the hon. member for Lisgar was not in his office that day and that the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa was available.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Just a stroke of the pen.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The easiest divorce court in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 263, for the relief of Elsie Mary Harrop Cameron.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Anna Kirk Rosborough Finlayson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Marie Madeleine Pauline Parent Bjarnason.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Mona Patricia Kiddie Heaney.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 267, to incorporate the Scripture Gift Mission (Canada) Incorporated.-Mr. Fleming.
Bill No. 268, to incorporate the Polish National Catholic Church of America in Canada.-Mr. Croll.
Bill No. 269, to incorporate Independent Pipe Line Company.-Mr. Welbourn.
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Irmgard Magdalena Hetzel Lichtenstein.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Anna Boronow Walter.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Ann Smith Couldrey.-Mr. Weir.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Phoebe Ross Kidd.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Alice Ann Gordon Lewis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Evelyn Serchuk Desjardins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 276, for the relief of Vivian June Pomeroy Walker.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Vivian Edna Bartlett Tribe.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 278, for the relief of Jeannine Lafleur Leatherdale.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 279, for the relief of Bertram Kenneth Kidman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 280, for the relief of Louis Elie Yon.-Mr Winkler.
Private Bills
Bill No. 281, for the relief of Doris Mary Thompson Lummis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 282, for the relief of Estelle Tetreau Latour.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 283, for the relief of Mona Fern Barton Kirkman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Addie Jane Monica Wright Brock.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 298, for the relief of Evelyn Maria Bianchi Lippiatt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Leon Simon Marchand.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Ruth Helen Findlay Paterson Priestman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Ilse Helen Kneutgen Jorgensen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of Howard Wesley Bartlett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 303, for the relief of Stephanos Katinoglou.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 304, for the relief of Yetta Handler Meller.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 305, for the relief of Raymond Landry.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 306, for the relief of Lloyd William Lane.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 307, for the relief of Lovannez Chartrand Dinelle.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 308, for the relief of Sophie Kotsos Moscoutis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 309, for the relief of Mae Kert Sigman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 310, for the relief of Sarah Jane Greeley Smith.-Mr. Winkler.

David Arnold Croll: the second reading of Bill No. 311, for the relief of John Cook Donaldson.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to
express the hope that this case will be looked at closely by the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills. Indeed, while I have singled out two or three for special mention, I hope that as a result of the attention that has been drawn to these bills, that committee, when it reports back, will be able to say that it has considered all of the bills more carefully than has been the case thus far.
One of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I have permitted these second readings to go through with such expedition tonight is that this is not the last time that this bill, or these bills, will come before us. They will go now to the committee on miscellaneous private bills, and then they will come back to the committee of the whole house and subsequently be up for third reading. Nevertheless this bill, like all the others, is an act of parliament, standing on its own feet; and

Private Bills-Divorce the more we go through this practice of putting these bills through in what amounts to batches, the more convinced I am that this is not the place where bills of this kind should be dealt with. The place where Mr. John Cook Donaldson should have been able to get relief is a court of some sort. I earnestly hope that it will not be long until John Cook Donaldson and all others who require this kind of relief will be able to go to such a court.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: On
division, and that applies to all these bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion agreed to on division.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



SECOND READINGS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Cecily Chandler Troop.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 313, for the relief of Doris May Thompson Ewaldt.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Laurette Trudel Charland.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	315,	for	the	relief	of William
Stevenson Greenshields.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Clare Kent Gerrie Jorgenson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	317,	for	the	relief	of Beatrice
Watson Bell.-Mr. Winkler.

David Arnold Croll: the second reading of Bill No. 318, for the relief of Marion Cruickshank MacArthur.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is	the	hon.	member for
Fraser Valley interested in this case? I see he has just come in. I am asking the hon. member for Fraser Valley if he is not interested in Bill No. 318, since the names involved are Cruickshank and MacArthur.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I did not know I was going to be brought into this debate. I have exactly one minute to make a few remarks. I do not know	this	lady	or	this	gentleman. Even
if they are Cruickshank and MacArthur I hope that people of these names will never be called upon to come before the House of Commons to get their divorce, but that they will live in a province that has a court of justice to handle such cases.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


Sarto Fournier: On
division.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the second time.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Annie Mendel-son Teitelbaum.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Gwendoline Mary Teresa Sullivan	Duddridge.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 321, an act to incorporate Champion Pipe Line Corporation Limited.- Mr. Macnaughton.
Mr. Speaker:: I might point out to the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill that if it is called now and not proceeded with it will go to the bottom of the list. I think it is only fair that if he wants the bill not to go to the bottom of the list I should not call it at this time.
It being nine o'clock, the house will resume the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.



POST OFFICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Rinfret for the second reading of Bill No. 322, respecting the Canada Post Office.	.
Joseph William Noseworthy: When the house rose at six o'clock for dinner I was in the process of explaining why I thought the Post Office Department needed a thorough housecleaning job done. I shall conclude these remarks with one more reference. I think, Mr. Speaker, it might be an appropriate time to consider whether or not it would be advisable to have the administration of the post office removed from the jurisdiction of a department of government, such as is at present the case, and have the administration placed under a commission similar to that which now operates our Canadian government railways. I am quite confident that such an arrangement would offer fewer opportunities for the practice of political patronage in connection with the Post Office Department than exist at the present time.
To my own personal knowledge it is just about impossible today for anyone who is not a well-known supporter of the Liberal party to get permission even to operate a sub-post office in some little cubby hole of a back shop or store in our cities and suburban municipalities. There are many opportunities for the distribution of political patronage in the post office system outside the civil service

and from all I can gather the present administration takes full advantage of those opportunities.
I want to turn now to the matter raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew), the change in rates for the carriage of newspapers and periodicals. The minister told us last year that his department lost approximately $12 million on the handling of newspapers and periodicals. The department is asking us to condone a reorganization of the department in connection with mail deliveries, a reduction in the public service, for the express purpose of saving something like $3 million. It is not reasonable that we should condone an economy of that nature and at the same time condone a loss of $12 million by one branch of the postal service. I am not familiar with these rates but I presume that the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) and his officials have estimated the new rates so that they will just about cover the cost of these services. There is more information we need but it probably will be forthcoming in committee.
I should like to know whether periodicals published and printed outside Canada and distributed in Canada will be subject to the same rates as periodicals published in Canada. I should like to know if the recent increase in the postal rate on unsealed drop letters containing mimeographed and printed notices from one cent to two cents, an increase of 100 per cent, is based on the cost of the service. I should like to know if the Post Office Department was losing half what it cost to provide that particular service; that the service cost the department just twice as much as it was receiving.
I contend that the various branches of the Post Office Department should pay their own way. I do not think the Canadian public want to subsidize the newspapers and magazines of this country to the extent of $12 million. Many of these magazines and newspapers, particularly the large metropolitan dailies, are operated at a considerable profit. We have had numerous opportunities to learn what those profits have been.
I do not agree with the leader of the opposition when he says that the public service rendered by these newspapers is of such a nature as to warrant our subsidizing them to the extent of $12 million, or to any extent as far as that goes. There may be a place for assisting certain Canadian periodicals, and here I am in agreement with the leader of the opposition. But there are other classes of periodicals, such as crime and sex comics, which should be taxed by way of increased postal rates. The country would
Post Office Act
not lose anything by a reduction in the number of that type of periodical that was circulated.
Some of our Canadian magazines have a difficult time to survive in competition with United States and other magazines. It would be a tragedy if the better class Canadian magazines were forced to go out of existence and Canadian readers left only with magazines published and printed in countries other than Canada. If there is room for assistance to such magazines that assistance should be given by way of a straight subsidy and acknowledged as such. The purpose for which it is given should be made clear to the Canadian public. I do not think the general Canadian public should pay for the postal services provided to these magazines.
The leader of the opposition put up a good argument in support of his opposition to section 11. He based his argument on the ground that these newspapers disseminated essential information, I think he said particularly at election time. I should like to comment briefly on that. I do not feel that our newspapers are providing us with essential information at election time or that they are giving us impartial news reports, particularly at election time. In this connection I should like to call attention to an article which appeared in Maclean's Magazine of August 15,	1949, just after the federal
election.
This article refers to two Toronto dailies which, by the way, are the largest English language evening papers published in Canada. Both these papers profess allegiance to democratic ideals and have declared that it is the duty of a newspaper to give impartial information on all sides of any question that is of public interest. As a matter of fact, the heads of both newspapers are on record to that effect in the editorial columns of their papers. Here is how impartial these papers were during the last election campaign. During the last week of the campaign the Toronto Daily Star gave five times as much news space to the Liberal party at it did to the Progressive Conservative party. The Toronto Telegram gave five times as much space to the Progressive Conservative party as it did to the Liberal. Both are supposed to be independent in politics. I would say that both, like many other newspapers in Canada, at election time at least degenerate into party propaganda sheets. The Star gave the C.C.F. party 2.4 per cent of its political news coverage in that week, and the Telegram gave the C.C.F. 2.6 per cent. There is not much choice between them.

Post Office Act
During that week of June 20 to June 25 the Toronto Daily Star gave the Liberals 1,734 inches of space, and the Telegram gave them 290 inches. During the same week the Star gave the Progressive Conservatives 355 inches and the Telegram gave them 1,402 inches. The Star gave the C.C.F. 52 inches of space and the Telegram gave them 46 inches. During that week the Star was sprinkled with 85 photographs of a political nature covering approximately 3,250 square inches, including captions. Of the 85, 73 were photographs of the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), his family, Liberal candidates, and their supporters. All but one of the remaining twelve were printed with the express purpose of discrediting the Progressive Conservative party. The only two photographs of the leader of the Progressive Conservative party were such as were designed to discredit him with the Star readers.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The generous Star.


Joseph William Noseworthy: Concerning the political events of the time, on Wednesday, June 15, the Star covered eight Liberal rallies which the Telegram ignored, and the Telegram covered four Progressive Conservative speeches which the Star ignored. It printed four other political items all anti-Liberal. On June 20 the Star noted that when Mr. Drew disembarked at the railway station in Quebec City a total crowd of about 400 met the train. The Telegram had him greeted by a crowd of close to 3,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Well, there is the truth.


Joseph William Noseworthy: With reference to a meeting in Lacombe, Alberta, on May 28 the Telegram reported that the meeting indoors at the fair grounds was made up almost entirely of farm folk. It reported that the spontaneous enthusiasm of the meeting was a pleasant surprise to Progressive Conservative organizers.


Mr. Shaw:: Was the election result a surprise?


Joseph William Noseworthy: The Star reporter wrote
that the afternoon meeting was attended by only about 600 people, and was made up mostly of high school students let out of classes for the occasion. I submit that, when you have two of our great dailies, both of which profess the ideals of democracy and that a newspaper should be impartial in its news reports-


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are impartial but on which side?


Joseph William Noseworthy: -when we have such reporting as the examples I have given, I can see no reason why, in the interest of the

dissemination of essential information at election time by these papers, we should give them from the public treasury a subsidy amounting to millions of dollars. I think the Canadian public as a whole will support the minister and his department in increasing the cost of postage on newspapers and periodicals to a point that will bring them closer to paying their own way.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) also spoke of the freedom of the press and the fact that freedom of the press depended to a large extent on freedom of distribution. In theory that is correct, but in actual practice I wonder how much freedom of the press we have in Canada today. I wonder to what extent national advertisers, who support to a great extent our large national magazines and daily newspapers, influence the policies of these publications. If the truth were known, I think it would be readily agreed that not one of these papers or magazines would dare offend these national advertisers by advocating any policy, political or economic, that these advertisers did not approve.
There is another movement on foot in Canada that needs close watching, and which will interfere with the freedom of our press. I refer to the practice of one individual or company gradually securing control of large chains of newspapers, big and small, and submitting all these newspapers to one editorial policy. That process is taking place in Canada. Large chains of newspapers are already organized and come under the domination of one individual or one small group of individuals. I submit that process is much more harmful to the freedom of the press than increasing their postage rate from, in the case of the larger newspapers, $3 a year to $7.60, and in the case of the smaller ones from 87 cents to $1.31, as pointed out by the leader of the opposition. On the whole, Mr. Speaker, we will approve this section of the bill, but I think we will be asking the minister for more information than is available to us at present, particularly on the two or three points I mentioned earlier in my remarks.


Frederick Davis Shaw: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I welcome this opportunity to consider this bill, which is designed to bring post office legislation up to date. It has been our belief for quite some time that an opportunity should be provided to thoroughly consider all matters relating to general post office policy. On more than one occasion we have urged that a committee of the house be set up for the purpose of considering post office estimates, or at least to consider general post office policy, and again

we urge that this course of action be followed. Our feeling is that this bill should be referred to a committee of this house.
My understanding of what the minister said this afternoon is that this bill has two specific purposes, first to bring post office legislation up to date and second to eliminate redundant sections of the old act. We have no argument to offer with respect to those two purposes. Certainly it is time the act was brought up to date, and certainly these redundant sections should not longer remain in the legislation. I agree with the minister that such matters as actual operating details should be considered when the post office estimates are before the house, and that we should relate our discussion specifically to policy when considering this bill.
I do not intend to occupy the time of the house now by referring to any specific sections of the bill, which I assume would be out of order; but I would like to serve notice upon the minister that I for one intend to question him in quite some detail on a number of very important aspects of policy. One has to do with the appointment of postmasters. My conviction is that the present method is entirely wrong. When we come to the relevant section I propose to elaborate upon that assertion, and may refer to certain specific cases to indicate why I feel the policy is wrong. Moreover, I think the time has arrived when we should give serious consideration to the conditions under which certain postal employees work, their hours of work, conditions of work and salaries.
Perhaps at this point I should say that during the years I have been privileged to serve as a member of the House of Commons my relationship with local postmasters, with district office officials and with head office officials has been most cordial. I have frequently commented upon the excellence of the work done by these various groups of post office employees. I have often wondered, however, how many of them chafe from time to time under certain restrictions and conditions under which they work. How they must chafe when trying to carry out certain aspects of post office policy which I think, if the truth were known, they believe should have been changed long since.
Another matter I intend to pursue at some length in the discussion of the bill is the service given in certain communities. I have always been led to believe that the motto of the Post Office Department is service, but I have discovered that no matter how legitimate my case may be I am inevitably met with this road block: will that single specific operation pay? It does not seem to matter whether settlers have been in a community 80709-225
Post Office Act
for forty or fifty years. It does not seem to matter whether they are entitled to the service. That question is always asked: will this single specific operation pay? In the light of that and certain other facts I suggest that perhaps we should give some consideration to that motto. Perhaps it is redundant. Possibly it should be modified to more properly meet present conditions. Let me repeat that in spite of anything I have said or may say before we finish with this bill, I have great admiration for those people who so conscientiously endeavour to maintain our postal service. I believe they have been restricted altogether too much. I think they have worked under conditions which many of us would characterize as intolerable. In spite of that, however, in the main they have continued to render excellent service to the people of Canada.
I am not going to take more time at this stage, Mr. Speaker. We feel that we can more appropriately express our views as the specific sections are considered by the committee.


Mr. Jean Frangois Pouliot (Temiscouata):: I want to say a word with respect to this bill, which is of great interest to the people of this country. I have had quite a lot to do with the institution of rural routes but very little to do with the appointment of postmasters, except in minor offices. I have been in politics for a long time, and the only postmasters I have tried to replace as such were those who had taken the positions of Liberal postmasters when Mr. Bennett was elected to office. I have left them alone except when there were complaints from interested parties, customers of the post office, for technical reasons. I did not even visit them. I believe I am one of the few members of parliament who have not visited each post office in their counties. My impression is that when we hear no complaints about a post office it means it is well run; that has been my experience. So long as I had no complaints I did not want to interfere with the management of the post office. But at times there were complaints. I remember Mr. Veniot, who was one of the greatest postmasters general whom I have known, and the next best is the present incumbent. In the meantime, there were postmasters general of various abilities. Some were very hard to deal with, and others' paid very little attention to the duties inherent in their position. Some others organized a system of secrecy concerning the reports coming to the department, and which are not supposed to be known to members of parliament.

Post Office Act
If there is a request made for any change or any improvement in the Post Office Department, a member of parliament should be entitled to know what report was made by the local inspector; what report was made to Ottawa by the district inspector; what recommendation was made by the head of the branch to the deputy minister; and what recommendation was made by the deputy minister to the minister. I have admiration and affection for the present Postmaster General, and he may rely on my support because he deserves it. I say the same of his parliamentary assistant. But so long as I support the minister and his parliamentary assistant, it does not mean that I have to swallow all the high officials we have in the Post Office Department in Ottawa. Some of them have been there for a long time, and some not so long.
My idea of a good civil servant is one who respects his minister, and who shows loyalty to the head of the department; not only that, but one who understands that for the good management of any department there shall be respect for the hierarchy within the department. The deputy minister is not the head of the department. He is the deputy head, and he should behave accordingly. The man who has the responsibility for the management of the department is no one else than the head of the department-this applies to all departments. Since I was first elected I have known very few postmasters general who have been just as assiduous in their parliamentary as in their departmental work, but that is the case with the present Postmaster General of Canada. The tribute that I pay him tonight is a well deserved tribute, because I have a profound respect for anyone who works with so much intelligence.
I wonder if I should recall what I said one day in a caucus in the province of Quebec. I said that the present Postmaster General is an intelligent man. There was loud applause. Then I said, "Your applause, gentlemen, is no compliment to his illustrious predecessor, but I will not insist." Sir, the members of parliament are supposed to be the collaborators of the cabinet ministers, especially of the Postmaster General. I do not see much partisan politics in any department; but since the time I had the postmasters and mail carriers reappointed who had suffered great injustice from the Bennett regime, I have not recommended anyone merely because he was one of my supporters. I have enough respect for the intelligence of the people in my constituency not to recommend any one of my supporters

who was not perfectly qualified to occupy a position in the Post Office Department or elsewhere.
Members of parliament, sir, make recommendations for the appointment of postmasters to minor post offices. For post offices having a gross revenue of $3,000, the appointment is made on the recommendation of a member of parliament, and above that it is by the civil service commission. Well now, what I have tried to do was to make the civil service commission understand the danger of appointing one who was not fully qualified to serve the community as it deserves to be served. Until now we have been quite successful, and in my constituency the Post Office Department has been abiding by the provisions of the Post Office Act, and the Civil Service Act concerning military preference.
Every time that a returned man was asking-for a vacant post office, so long as he was qualified he was recommended. But what happened was that after their appointment some resigned. They said they would not keep the job. Then the department had the trouble of appointing other men who sometimes also resigned. Those arfe difficult matters, especially with regard to men suffering from disabilities. The matter should be looked into with a view to making the least possible number of appointments within a certain period of time and seeing to it that in the first place men who will be the most useful are selected.
I give credit to the minister for his co-operation. I also give credit to most of the officials of his department, especially those outside Ottawa. I do not complain of all of the personnel of the post office department in Ottawa but I remember well that among the high officials there is one whom I could not thank at any time because I had some trouble with him. The only way to fix it up was not to deal with him at all. He was vicious; he still is. I hope he will soon go. This is one example.
Others try to create trouble for members of parliament, in the name of efficiency, with the pretext of streamlining the department on all sides. Others play at intrigue by coaxing some members of the press gallery, apparently giving them false scoops. They are hard to deal with. But to establish and to maintain order in any department is not fascism; it is order. The idea of order has been so much lost sight of in the minds of the people that whenever anyone tries to establish it he is accused of interfering with the efficiency of a smooth-working system.

You know well, Mr. Speaker, what is the basis of good government. It is plain common sense, fair play and respect for sound, established practices.
There is something else to which I wish to refer. There is to be taken care of not only the distribution of mail in the Post Office Department but also the delivery of mail to all the recipients of it throughout the country. The Post Office Department is a big one with a revenue of, I would imagine, about $100 million a year and with a large number of employees. I pay tribute to the personnel of the Post Office Department, as I said, with the exception of a few plants that have grown too high. In the spring it is time to cut the weeds. But the average personnel is good and has a good spirit. That is something which has been inspired by the minister himself, by the parliamentary assistant and by those employees of the Post Office Department who have been trained in the right manner by those who have a high sense of duty and who have more public spirit than private selfishness and ambition.
To come back to the mail routes and to the delivery of mail, as hon. members know the delivery is made in cities by letter carriers who are appointed by the civil service commission outside of the jurisdiction-and most of the time outside of the knowledge-of members of parliament. The staff of the city post offices is also appointed by the civil service commission. I have not much more to say, but with regard to rural routes there is one thing that should be considered, namely the differences of level, the differences in the kinds of roads on which the mail carrier will have to go in order to deliver the mail, the hills, and so on. It is impossible to have a flat average of $50 per mile. There may be some cases where it is a reasonable payment for the services of the mail carrier, but in others it is not. If a man has to climb hills for the delivery of mail, he evidently deserves more than the one who travels on a flat route. This is one point which should be left to the good judgment and the fairness of the minister, at least in appeal from the decision previously rendered by those in charge.
I am glad that, in virtue of the new act which is before the house now, the minister will have authority to make his own decisions up to $1,000, I believe. Is that it?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, $1,000. It is of great importance, and otherwise mail carriers complain that they cannot make both ends
Post Office Act
meet, and they abandon their contracts. New tenders are called for, and the work is always starting anew.
I thank the present minister for the establishment of a letter carrier service in the city of Riviere du Loup, which was inaugurated yesterday, and which is welcomed by all. I thank him also for the establishment of numerous rural routes in my constituency, to the benefit of the farmers. According to my knowledge, it is the policy of the minister to give the best possible service to Canadians who live in cities, and also to Canadians who live in the country. It is a great satisfaction to all of them to be able to wait at home for their mail, which is delivered to them by letter carriers in the cities, and by mail carriers in the country. There are still some small post offices that will render a great service.
In each municipality there is a main post office. Just a minute ago I heard the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Shaw) speak of the good relations that exist between him and the postmasters of his constituency. I could say the same thing except that at times we had some difficulty, again coming from Ottawa-it was before the minister came in to be in charge of the department-just on account of the closing of post offices on Sundays after mass. It was just an order that came from Ottawa. It came from the sky. It was an old tradition to have post offices open for an hour on Sundays. It was not an inconvenience to postmasters to give the letters and the newspapers to the farmers who wanted to have them to read on Sunday. There is nothing wrong in reading one's correspondence and the newspapers on Sundays. But the post offices had to be closed. Fortunately there were many postmasters in my constituency who were bright enough to understand that such an order had not to be followed very closely.
Other than that, the regulations of the department are well observed, and I am satisfied with the Post Office Department, although there are some obstacles in the way of progress and in the name of superefficiency. Efficiency is very good; superefficiency is just a wee little bit too much.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I shall leave the floor to others, and I shall have other occasions to discuss the post office business. But I wanted to pay tribute to the minister, to his assistant and to all the competent civil servants of good will in the Post Office Department in Ottawa and elsewhere throughout the country. I am sure that the study of this legislation, which is of paramount importance, will be inspired
3530

Post Office Act
by no partisan bias. I think enough of my hon. colleagues to be sure that they will not fail to discuss the new provisions of the Post Office Act with their usual candour and- wisdom.


William Earl Rowe: I am
very glad, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has added the word "wisdom" to his rather eloquent tribute to the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret).
I do not intend to take up much of the time of the house on this issue. I agree with the hon. member for Temiscouata that it is a very important one. I do not propose to support everything that he has said with reference to the administration of the Post Office Department. I agree with him that the Postmaster General is a very congenial gentleman. In this legislation I know that he is only expressing the desires of his government.
I feel that it is rather strange and worthy of note at this time that a democratic government should be imposing such penalties on the dissemination of news. .They are doing it at a time that news is so important in the life of this country and of every other country.
In the daily newspapers we read of the enormous surpluses that the government is enjoying at the present time, surpluses, Mr. Speaker, I believe five times as large in the first month of the fiscal year as the government expected to have in the whole year.


An hon. Member:: Four times.


William Earl Rowe: Someone said "four times". Do not doubt my word for one point.
It has long been recognized in the development of any country, and that is especially true of this young country, that transportation, immigration and education are features that should be divorced from what you might call a profit and loss balance sheet of government administration. If there is anything in the life of any young country, and especially the life of Canada, that is of importance it definitely is the freedom of the press, and that is traditional in our way of life.
There are small weekly newspapers, and other small dailies, that have been disseminating news and have been sending it to the far-flung areas of this dominion at less cost per year than what the government now proposes to levy against them as an increase. In these inflationary times we have all had experiences of the increased cost of living, the increased wage rates that we negotiate from time to time, the increased cost of materials all along the line, the increased freight rates, if you like, and the increases on every side. But

Canada is a large country; Canada is a young country; Canada has many people in far-flung areas, far removed from educational circles and communities, bush workers, miners,-


Mr. Gibson:: Tories.


William Earl Rowe: Yes, and some like the hon. member, independent of any party. All across this dominion we have these people depending upon the dissemination of news. They want to read the daily papers.
There are those, Mr. Speaker, who have not had the opportunity of educational advantages. I have seen men who have sat to the right of you, Mr. Speaker, since I have been in this House of Commons, who had very little education. In fact, without naming them, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) knows whom I mean. One of the most brilliant minds we had in this dominion admitted in this house that he had very little education, but perhaps like Churchill he had picked up things as he went along. He learned a little from the daily press, as the Minister of Agriculture must do when he reads his speeches. After he reads them he must be surprised. The daily press means so much to the life of this country.


An hon. Member:: What about the weeklies?


William Earl Rowe: I am not forgetting the weeklies because if there is any press that is more or less non-political, if there is any press that is non-partisan, if there is any branch of the press in Canada which helps to form an important part of this great fourth estate of this great dominion, it is the weekly press. I pay my tribute to the weekly press of Canada. I hold no brief, and as I grow older I hold less brief, for those who disagree with the party I support. I know there are some that do not support the Conservative party very solidly; there are others that support it rather clumsily; but we do have freedom of the press, of the fourth estate as it is called, that means so much to the life of the country.
Our press means much in the education of this country. Not all hon. members within sound of my voice, let alone many men in the far-flung areas, are able to send their boys and girls to universities. There are many families that cannot afford to do that. There are many families that have to work hard; there are many great minds in Canada who have learned to toil with their -hands but who have learned from the daily press. I pay that tribute to the press of Canada. Thank God we have a free press in Canada. They have done more generally and broadly for the education of our people, for the inspiration to try to do better in the future, for the

inspiration of trade and industry, for the inspiration to develop charitable and social services, for the inspiration to develop and increase social services and church work, than they are given credit for.
We find now that the government seeks to impose a penalty which in normal times or in times of the slightest depression would be a crushing blow to many small weeklies. There is not one within sound of my voice who does not know of many weeklies throughout the country that have been selling annual subscriptions for $2 and still having difficulty in getting enough subscribers to make their advertising rates profitable. In 1930 the tax per ton on newsprint used for the dissemination of news in this dominion was fifty cents, and today the Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret) proposes that it shall be $10.20. The Canadian producers of newsprint receive less for the newsprint they deliver to Canadian publishers, but the Canadian publishers pay substantially more than the United States publishers. The United States publishers pay $106 per ton, but with these taxes as they stand now the Canadian publisher will pay $111.20 per ton, when all these taxes are included. There is a ten per cent sales tax on the daily and weekly papers, yet the crime and sex comics and all these nonsensical s^ets which add nothing to the culture of this dominion pay no sales tax.
Let us be fair. I agree with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) that the Postmaster General is genial and always looks like a fair fellow. In so far as I am concerned I think he has been fair. I urge him to take this back to cabinet council and review this act. I know that no government of Canada could impose this tax at the present time without realizing that there are bound to be many repercussions. I know we have the bureau of publicity here in Ottawa which is growing like a mushroom. We have the C.B.C. and the other means of disseminating news for the government. In fact, the government is becoming the greatest publisher in Canada. Now we have the government curtailing others.
We have the publications sent out by the Department of Agriculture. I know the Minister of Agriculture authorizes all this and I try to read it, but my wastepaper basket is full of the things I receive from that department which I have not time to read. The Department of Trade and Commerce do likewise. Being somewhat interested in the newsprint industry I would say that if it were not in short supply I might almost welcome the waste of newsprint there is by the dominion government.
Post Office Act
It does surprise me that now they are curtailing its use by the imposition of this tax. They are going to impose a tax of approximately $3 on many of the rural newspapers in Canada, or double their present rates. I ask hon. members to pause and realize what it will mean to those in the far-flung areas, the miners, the people in the bush and others in isolated sections who have hesitated to send in subscriptions at $2.50 if they are now asked to pay $5.50?
This seems to be in keeping with the trend of a government that has been in power too long. This is a trend toward the curtailment of the press. It is a trend that has been indicated all along the line in the curtailment of the press in different ways, to submerge the news instead of disseminating it. There are many services that are necessary in this great country, vast as it is, sparsely settled as it is. This fact has been recognized since the days of confederation. The transportation of our vast resources, the transportation of our people in the far-flung areas, has been paid for more or less by the state. Immigration which is needed to improve and increase our population is paid for by the state. The dissemination of news for the education of our people should also be considered part of our nation building.
This seems to me to be a grave error on the part of the government. At least it is an oversight. I would be unfair if I said that it was intentional, but whether it is intentional or an oversight it will discourage the dissemination of news. It will weaken the prestige of the fourth estate in this dominion. It will curtail the freedom of the press. It will create hardship for many who feel it is a hardship to pay the present annual subscriptions but who still want to know what goes on outside their local districts. It will create a hardship for those whose only means of learning is the daily and weekly press.
I urge the government to reconsider its move in this regard and try to get the revenue somewhere else. You have the comic strips, you have the sex magazines, you have the crime sheets and other sources of revenue.


An hon. Member:: The racing form.


William Earl Rowe: I am not any better reader of the racing form than the hon. member, and certainly he is not too good. Put it on that publication if you wish, but do not put it on the papers that mean so much, that are one of the delicate hands behind the culture of this dominion.
Observant as the Postmaster General is, he must have observed that in the last few years there has been an increase in the literature going out from the dominion and

Post Office Act
in many other countries we have seen a gradual decrease in what is allowed to be published. If there is no other way of doing it, they ration newsprint. That is what is done in many socialist countries. The newspapers are not allowed to have enough newsprint to disseminate news, no matter what their political faith may be. They may be a .little to the left, they may be too far to the right, but in many cases they are not permitted to print news outside of what is of local interest.
No matter what the issue is, no matter what policy is being followed, the people should know what is going on. This tax imposing a restriction on the dissemination of news is more dangerous to our democratic way of life in these modern times than at any other time in our history. There has never been a time in our history when people have craved knowledge more than they do now. There has never been a time when the dissemination of news has been more vital to our very existence. If the freedom of the press never dies in Canada, communism will never live in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to comment on the subject that has just been discussed by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) as my colleague, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), has already dealt with that matter. I feel, however, that I must say that I was a bit surprised to hear the press of this country referred to as having "delicate hands". We all agree with the position he took as to the importance of the freedom of the press, but I wonder if that freedom is to be curtailed by the slight increase per year in postage rates proposed in the bill now before the house, the purpose of which is to ask newspapers to pay their own way. As for the freedom of the press and its impartiality, the hon. member for York South has already given evidence as to how far various newspapers lean in their presentation of facts, particularly when they relate to political matters.
However, the reason I was anxious to get on my feet was because I felt the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) would be disappointed if I did not rise at the earliest opportunity to take issue with some of the things that he said when he spoke in this debate a little while ago. I refer in particular to his views as to the part that he thinks members of parliament should play in the internal affairs of the Post Office Department. There is one thing about the hon. member for Temiscouata. He does not hide his belief in the practice of patronage.
fMr. Rowe.)
He not only admits that there is such a practice but he glories in it, and carries on his practice of it right out in the open. For that I suppose we should commend him, much as we dislike and deplore the practice itself.
I did not know that there was anything in the Post Office Act that said that members of parliament should make recommendations for the appointment of postmasters for post offices having below a certain gross revenue. I have looked through the bill before us to try to find some section that even hints at that. Maybe it is there but I cannot find it.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It is only in Grit type.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) says that it is only in Grit type. At any rate, I have not seen it. It may be that there are some regulations to that effect. I would be surprised to learn that, but it is pretty clear from the way in which the hon. member for Temiscouata spoke tonight that there are some members of parliament who make a practice of making recommendations as to the appointment of postmasters, and apparently have the experience of having those recommendations accepted.


John Lambert Gibson: How about the insurance
officers in Saskatchewan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't try to get me off the
track. I feel that the practice urged by the hon. member for Temiscouata is thoroughly out of keeping with our modern -democratic process. After all, if that principle is to apply to the post office what about the Canadian National Railways? What about the Polymer Corporation? What about Trans-Canada Air Lines?


Mr. Ferrie:: What about the province of
Saskatchewan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If the hon. member for
Temiscouata is going to carry on that practice he would have members of parliament say who should pilot our North Stars. I would much rather have Trans-Canada Air Lines make decisions of that character, and I think the same applies to the post office. We have the right and the obligation on the floor of parliament to debate matters of policy, but when it comes to internal administration I suggest that that should be done on a civil service basis and not on the basis of patronage. May I remind the hon. member for Tepniscouata, and others who are interested, that a short while ago a delegation from the Canadian Congress of Labour waited upon the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and other members of the government to express among many other views the hope

that some improvement would be made in the relations between the civil service and the government. The specific request was for the provision of collective bargaining, but according to a dispatch that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen the Prime Minister said:
We want the civil service to enjoy as good working conditions as provided by good employers throughout the nation . . .
Then he went on to say:
We want the civil service to be fairly treated but we do not want any preferential treatment accorded them . . .
Then I should like to read this paragraph:
Mr. St. Laurent recalled that years ago it was considered there was too much political patronage involved in appointments to the government service. To improve this situation, parliament appointed the civil service commission.
Thus you have the hon. member for Temis-couata on the one hand boasting of the patronage method, and you have the Prime Minister on the other saying that the reason for the appointment of the civil service commission was to get away from patronage.
I have been glad to note certain items in some newspapers to the effect that the deputy postmaster general does not like this business of patronage, and that he has even been treading on the toes of some members of parliament in that respect. It may be that that is the reason for the speech made tonight by the hon. member for Temiscouata. Maybe he has had his toes stepped on, or maybe he is speaking for someone who has.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise on a question of privilege. According to the standing orders of the house, no hon. member can impute motives to any one of his colleagues. What I have said has been said. I have nothing to add to what I have said. I want the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to withdraw from his speech any comment imputing motives to me. What I say I say from experience which is much longer than his and which has been satisfactory to my constituents. If they had not been satisfied with my recommendations they would have voted against me. I challenge the hon. gentleman to repeat in my constituency the speech he is making tonight. It would help me a lot.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I confess the hon. member puts me at a bit of a loss. He wants me to withdraw something, and he has not said specifically what it is he wants me to withdraw. Then he says he wants me to go down to the county of Temiscouata and say the same things again on the ground that it would be to his benefit.


John Lambert Gibson: Withdraw.
Post Office Act


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What has he got to withdraw?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The rule is that a member must not impute a motive to another member other than a motive that the hon. member acknowledges, so I would like to know what-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had no intention of imputing any motive to the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree with you perfectly, Mr. Speaker.
I was about to say that if press reports are correct concerning the deputy postmaster general, to the effect that he is trying to stamp out patronage in the post office, he has my wholehearted support; and I am glad to know that he is listening to that comment at this moment.
However, I really rose to speak on one matter of principle that is covered by the bill now before us. I shall reserve any more extended remarks about it until we get to the section of the bill dealing with the letting of contracts, but since this is the time we discuss the general principles involved I felt I would like to say a few words about this matter now.
I refer to the practice of letting out under contract the collection of mail from post office letter boxes scattered around our cities. I should not speak for all cities in Canada, but I do know the situation in my own city of Winnipeg and I have reason to believe it is similar if not identical to that in other cities. In Winnipeg we have these trucks painted red with the words "Canada Post G.R." on the side, which travel about the city picking up letters and parcels from the street letter boxes. Similar trucks deliver mail from the post office to the trains, to airports and so on. I have no doubt most people in my city assume that those trucks and various delivery vehicles are owned by the Post Office Department and that the men who drive them and do this work are employees of that department. In the city of Winnipeg that is not the case. This work is let out by contract; as a matter of fact there are a number of contractors depending on the particular service in question. This in turn means that the drivers of these trucks, sometimes referred to as mail couriers, are not civil servants and employees of the Post Office Department, but are employees of the contractors to whom this_work has been let.
My plea to the Postmaster General and his department is that consideration be given to placing that work directly under the aegis

Post Office Act
of the department. I make that plea particularly in the name of the employees concerned. In my view the mail couriers in Winnipeg are not getting a proper break in the matter of wages, hours, holidays, pension rights, sick leave and all the other working conditions, comparable to what is enjoyed by civil servants. When from time to time some of us take up the plight of these people with the department we are simply told that the Post Office Department is not the employer of these men, that they are employed by the contractors to whom this work has been let, and that they must apply to their immediate employers for any improvement in working conditions. I find further that there are different types of contracts, and that these contracts have varied over the years. Some have escalator clauses; others have not. Sometimes when a group of employees appeals to the contractor for an improvement in wages or working conditions, the employer appeals to the government for an increase in the amount paid under the contract. Sometimes the government answers that plea, an increase is given and the improvement takes place. On other occasions the contractor does not pass on the plea, or if he does the government does not see fit to increase the amount paid. As a result there are variations between one type of service and another, as well as between cities, in the wages and working conditions of these men.
My study of this whole matter, arising out of close contact with the men involved, leads me to assert that the whole situation is quite unsatisfactory. The men can go on pursuing the present practice of trying to get their employers to improve their conditions, which sometimes results in their employers trying to get better contracts. But there is always a lag as far as the men are concerned, and they are woefully behind the conditions enjoyed by other civil servants and people doing comparable work in a place like my own city.
That is the case. I shall deal with it in more detail when we reach that section of the bill; in fact when that time comes I shall present facts and figures as to wages, hours of work, lack of pension privileges and matters of that kind. I did feel, however, that at this stage when we are discussing the principle of this new legislation, I should bring to the attention of those who deal with these matters the urgent need of reviewing this whole situation as far as mail couriers are concerned and with respect to these trucks that they drive about the city picking up the mail.


Gordon Graydon: I should like to direct some observations to the minister in reference to this legislation in the hope that some of my ideas that have been expressed in the house on previous occasions may yet prevail. Before doing so, however, I should like to follow up the excellent observations made a few moments ago by the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe) in connection with this indirect tax upon the dissemination of news in Canada.
These days we read of the suppression of newspapers like La Prensa in Buenos Aires; we read of the request by French journalists and newspapers for the allocation of additional newsprint to help promote, establish and maintain the principles of our free way of life, and it seems to me that we in parliament have an obligation, as the minister and the government have a very special duty, to see to it that while we are attempting to establish those principles in the broad international field we do not do something to undermine the very same principles at home by means of domestic legislation such as this. It may be argued, as it has been argued in this debate, that the tax is not ruinous, that it will not be felt so heavily. In my view, however, the imposition of additional financial obligations upon those disseminating news in Canada is a retrograde step for which I do not think the government can take much credit at this time. I should like the minister to consider the possibility, even at this time, of leaving things as they are at least for the time being, while this nation and others who feel as we do are engaged in a strenuous struggle for survival and for the continuance of our free way of life.
I do not want to indulge in unnecessary forensics in connection with a matter of this kind, but I think it goes to the very root of our democratic system. While we have free postage on Hansard containing our speeches in this house; while we have the free distribution of all the propaganda, if you like, coming from government departments in the form of news, statements of policy and the like-and I have not heard of any tax going on that-in the final analysis I wonder-


Alphonse Fournier: How about the
opposition speeches?


Gordon Graydon: You do not send them out because you have good public relations without them. In any event, in so far as the speeches of the members are concerned which leave this parliament to go to the various constituencies, they are only a drop in the

bucket. So far as the real dissemination of news of this parliament is concerned, that rests with the members of the press gallery, the eyes and ears of the nation. I dare say if you were to remove the members of the press gallery for one session of parliament there would be scarcely anyone in the country who would take the slightest interest in what was happening in parliament, because the eyes and ears of the people are in that press gallery. Along with our parliamentary system, they form our democratic system. You cannot separate the two. One is complementary to the other. When you attempt, even, by this method which is employed here, to impose a burden upon the dissemination of that news, you not only attack the press itself but indirectly you are attacking parliament. I cannot, therefore, be too emphatic in expressing to the minister my belief that he should review that part of this post office bill.
If I may, I should like to come to another point which has not been dealt with in this debate, and that is why we have to keep on forgetting the forgotten man. This has been going on now not for years but for decades. There never seems to be enough influence brought upon the minister or upon the government with respect to the plight of the rural mail couriers to have the government act in any definite way. Here we have a great shake-up-at least, I suggest one may call it a shake-up-in our Post Office Department and a number of amendments made to that act. There has been some talk about overhauling an act which has been there since 1867. If we are going to overhaul the act, then why do we not overhaul some of the regulations that need overhauling the most? Here we are taxing newspapers and the dissemination of news, and at the same time doing nothing for the rural mail couriers across this country. While perhaps for some urban people the rural mail courier just appears to be another contractor, that is not the case. Those of us who have been served by rural mail during the many years of our farm life realize that the rural mail courier is much more than just a contractor. He is an institution in the rural life of every rural community.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: What is your suggestion?


Gordon Graydon: I am coming to it. Since he is an institution, I feel that he ought to have more consideration than he is receiving in this particular bill. Of course, the minister will say that these couriers are contractors. They have put in the lowest tender. He will say it is because they have tendered low that they are now in this serious plight. I
Post Office Act
want to tell the minister that I was never able to see the justice or the logic in picking out certain people in the Post Office Department and asking them to tender. When the minister is appointed, his position is not put up for tender.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How do you know?


Gordon Graydon: When the parliamentary assistant is appointed, his position is not put up for tender. When the deputy minister is appointed, his position is not put up for tender. One could go all down the line. I cannot see why we continue, year after year, picking out the poorest paid of all our people in the Post Office Department and allowing that condition to be continued. I have made this suggestion before, but I am going to make it again. I realize the difficulties facing the Postmaster General in this regard. It is not an easy matter to solve. I believe a move ought to be made to solve the problem; and for that reason I urge, I hope with a little more effect than in the past, that the rural mail couriers be brought before a special parliamentary committee in Ottawa to explain their suggestions as to how this matter can be properly worked out.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: What is your suggestion?


Gordon Graydon: That is my suggestion. I do not think that anyone could make a better suggestion than to have the rural mail people come down here and discuss this matter with a parliamentary committee. They could tell us how this contract system could be improved or changed, because it seems to me that almost any change would be better than the present system. After all, the fact that from time to time bonuses have had to be given to contractors across Canada after the contracts have been in force for some considerable time, and also the fact that departmental officials are tied hand and foot in attempts to try to work out something for rural mail couriers in various instances, are indications of the need for a change.
There is case after case where a courier takes a contract only to find that before the termination of the contract the number of boxes on his route has increased immeasurably.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: He gets a proportionate
increase.


Gordon Graydon: He gets a proportionate increase, but it is not always the type of increase that is required under the particular circumstances. More than that, I want to say that when we are dealing with an institution that is as important as the rural mail couriers, surely we owe it to them to bring them down to Ottawa so they can tell us what

Post Office Act
they regard as a proper solution of this difficult problem. After the rural mail couriers have come to Ottawa and given their complaints to a committee, then I would be satisfied with whatever decision was made. I want to emphasize to the minister that I think we at least owe that much to them.
In view of the fact that this is an opportunity for dealing with the Postmaster General's department in general, there is another point I wish to bring to his attention. In places like the constituency I represent, which has been growing perhaps more rapidly than most sections of Canada and in which there are literally hundreds of houses going up year after year with new areas opening up, it seems to me that the question of extending the rural mail or postal delivery service to meet that condition is essential and urgent today. I know that the department is making some effort to meet the situation as they find it. If a committee is formed-I hope the minister has not entirely closed the door on that-that is one question I should like brought before the committee. In the United States there has been adopted some scheme whereby these suburban communities are being serviced by a sort of in-between system, that is between the postal delivery service and the regular rural mail delivery. I should like to see the committee deal with that question as well.
So I say to the minister that when the act is being overhauled, these matters ought to be considered. Once the act is finally passed with such amendments as may be necessary during its tour through the legislative chamber, we may not have an opportunity of satisfying the rural mail couriers that their case has not been glossed over by any procedure of parliament which does not give them an opportunity of being heard.
I am not asking for impossible reforms. All I am asking for is to have them heard. If it is then determined that the present system of contract is the best, I think the minister will have satisfied the couriers, the public and parliament. More than that, he will have done something which is perhaps more difficult: he will have satisfied me.
(Translation):


Mr. Wilfrid LaCroix (Quebec-Monimor-ency):: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted, first of all, to endorse unreservedly the words of
praise directed a moment ago to the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Rinfret). I may say without hesitation that, in my constituency, there has never been any patronage because the contracts have invariably been let to the lowest bidder.
[Mr. Gray don. I
I wish to mane a lew suggestions to the minister with respect to this bill and I hope he will give them his earnest consideration.
Subsection 2 of section 11 of this bill, with reference to the new rates for periodicals and newspapers, reads in part as follows:
(a) for those published daily
(i) with a circulation of ten thousand or more copies per issue, four cents for each pound weight or fraction thereof.
In the province of Quebec, the daily newspapers, that really provide a source of information for our people, come from only four cities: Montreal, Three Rivers, Quebec and Sherbrooke. In order to reach the rural population, these newspapers must, of necessity, use the postal services over a considerable expanse of territory. Would it not be fairer and more practical to increase postal rates for newspapers in direct proportion to the area covered by their own mailing lists, as in the case of the railway passenger fares?
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, allow me to suggest to the minister the establishment of a postal zoning system whereby rates would be increased in direct proportion to distances travelled. For instance some papers in Quebec city have sixty thousand subscribers outside the city. It would only be fair to these subscribers to increase postal rates in proportion to the distance involved. The situation in Quebec province is not the same as in Ontario where cities are clustered together and where most dailies can be delivered to their subscribers, who are limited to these centres, by light delivery vans.
Since the minister generally listens sympathetically to the suggestions which are directed to him I do hope that he will carefully consider this idea of a zoning system which would help to prevent an unreasonable increase in newspaper subscription rates for people who live in rural areas.
(Text):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, the arguments that have been brought before the house by the opposition members, and by some on the government side, are in the main all related to one subject, namely the increase in the rates on newspapers. It has been said that these new rates are taxes. May I say that they are not taxes.	They are fees for services

rendered. Up till now we have been rendering these services for $15 million and have been collecting only about $3,900,000. With the proposed increase, we shall add another $2 million only on the services rendered the newspapers. That will amount to about $6 million that we shall collect from the newspapers and magazines, out of an expenditure of some $16 million this year and probably much more next year on account of the increase in the cost of transportation, wages, et cetera. *
It has been suggested that the second reading of this bill should be deferred until time has been given to review this section. If the house would like to have the assurance that the section itself might be deferred for further consideration, I have no hesitation in giving it in order to weigh all the arguments that have been made here. I might say, however, that consideration has already been given to practically all of these suggestions. I must point out to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that deferring the second reading of the bill would of itself prevent the establishment of certain postal areas in which he might be interested.
The increases that we have made here are not confined to Canada. Similar increases have been made in the United States. It has been suggested that the increase in the United States is only 60 per cent and spread over three years. That is correct. But one must remember that in the United States the deficit in the postal department for the last operation year was $599 million. I should not like to see my department facing a somewhat proportionate deficit.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to answer all the questions at this time. I will come to them in committee. There is one thing, however, that I must answer, namely the question of charging more to certain types of newspapers. Reference has been made to comic magazines. The comic strips included in the papers of course are carried at the same rate as the newspapers. When we come to the comic magazines my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, has not been well informed, because comics do not enjoy the privilege that he has quoted. Comics have to pay on the regular circular rate of two cents for one ounce or a fraction thereof, and one cent for each ounce over that. Therefore the comic magazines or the sex magazines that have been mentioned pay nine cents a pound as compared with the four cents that we are charging for the big newspapers.
I might point out here-it might be of some interest-that if we had collected the amount
Post Office Act
of $12 million deficit that we had in the department on newspapers and magazines we would have sufficient revenue to reduce the forward letter rate from four cents to three cents throughout Canada. That is, if we did not have this deficit of $12 million we could reduce all the four-cent rates that exist at the present time to three cents so as to make a uniform three-cent rate throughout Canada.


Mrs. Fairclough:: May I ask the Postmaster General a question?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: If it were at all possible I should like to answer questions in the committee stage.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: With respect to the $12
million which the minister has said they have lost on newspapers, is that loss not on all second-class mail?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Newspapers and periodicals I should have said. Newspapers and magazines; that is the second-class mail.
Referring to the treatment that is given our letter carriers and the question raised by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) I should like to announce to the house-the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mrs. Fairclough) asked me a question the other day-that the department has recommended to the civil service commission and to the treasury board that overtime for letter carriers incurred during the transition period incidental to the introduction of one delivery walks be paid for in cash, effective with the date of change, if any, in the letter carrier walks operating from the office, the actual time of change to be the effective date. There will of course be variations, as all walks in every instance were not changed from the same date. The matter is now before the treasury board, and with the little experience I have gained I think the treasury board will see the well founded effect of this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Overtime at what rates?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Overtime as is customary in the post office at the ordinary rate, but that will be retroactive to the date of the introduction of the walk after an official check has been made of that walk. We are pressing our inspectors to make the checks as soon as possible; but the letter carriers can be assured of one thing. Even if a check does not take place today, or if it takes place only in a month's time, they continue to accumulate overtime, and will be paid for that.
I do not think that there is any more that I should like to say at this time. I reserve the right to answer all questions that have been asked at the committee stage, Mr. Speaker.

Post Office Act


Gordon Graydon: Don't forget the rural mail couriers.


George Alexander Drew: May I just clarify one point? The minister referred to the remarks that I made about comics, and what are described as crime books and sex books and things of that kind. Is it not true that these books are exempted from the sales tax that does apply to newspapers? Not the sales tax, but the tax that applies to newspapers?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is what I said. The rate that is applied to them is the circular rate, which is two cents for two ounces, and one cent for every ounce over that, which gives for one pound the rate of nine cents as compared with four cents for the big newspapers, or one cent and a half for weeklies.


George Alexander Drew: That is the postal rate, is it not?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Yes.


George Alexander Drew: I am talking about the tax; I am not talking about the postal rate.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I thought the leader of the opposition was referring to the rates.


George Alexander Drew: No. Is it not correct that they are exempted from the tax upon the newspapers?


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: That is not my department; I am sorry.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section T-Short title.
Section stands.
Progress reported.

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will move to go into supply and ask for interim supply. We will not call any new departments. I understand that this is a formality. Then we will revert to the study of the post office bill.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 30, 1951